JUDGMENT : N. Seshasayee, J. 1. The Claimants before the Tribunal have come forward with this Appeal (a) seeking enhancement of Compensation, and (b) challenging the finding of the Tribunal absolving the liability of Respondents 3 to 5. In a Road Accident that took place on 29.4.1998, one Ganesan while riding his moped was fatally knocked down by another Two-wheeler as a consequence of which his Legal Heirs/Claimants have approached the Tribunal with a claim of Rs. 5,00,000, as against which the Tribunal has passed an Award for Rs. 2,85,000 with Interest @ 9% per annum. The offending vehicle belonged to the Second Respondent and at that relevant time First Respondent was riding it. The offending Vehicle however, was not insured. 2.1. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has come forward with the contention that inasmuch as there is a Statutory duty vested in Respondents 3 to 5 to ensure that no Motor Vehicles ply on the road unless they are insured, and since they have not performed their Statutory duty vis-à-vis, the Vehicle in question, they must be made liable for the liability arising out of an offending vehicle in question. 2.2. The next point argued was on the quantum of Compensation payable. He contended that the deceased was 45 years old at the time of accident, that he was a Barber and hence, self-employed and was making Rs. 3,500 per month. As no documentary proof of his income could be produced before the Tribunal, it notionally fixed his Monthly Income at Rs. 2,000 and after providing for his Personal Expenses at 1/4th of his Monthly Income, the Tribunal arrived at the Loss of Dependency at Rs. 2,70,000, in arriving which it has applied 15 as the relevant Multiplier. The learned Counsel also added that under the head of Love & Affection for the victim's two minor children Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 10,000, but for Loss of Consortium for the widow nothing was granted. 3. Considering the second point first, the only amendment that can be brought about in quantifying the Loss of Dependency is to add Loss of Future Prospects at 30% based on the decision on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and Others, 2013 (3) CTC 883 (SC) : 2013 (2) TN MAC 55 (SC) : 2013 (9) SCC 54 . Reckoning his monthly income at Rs. Reckoning his monthly income at Rs. 2,000, one third of the same must be deducted towards the Personal Expenses of the victim of the accident, and the balance arrivable is Rs. 1,334. To this if another 30% is added towards Future Prospects, the multiplicand would be (Rs. 1,734 x 12) Rs. 20,808. Applying 15 as the Multiplier the total Loss of Dependency is Rs. 3,12,120. For Love & Affection for the two children, Compensation is enhanced to Rs. 25,000 each, and for Loss of Consortium Rs. 50,000 is awarded for the First Claimant. A summary of enhanced Compensation awarded on various heads is provided herein below: Head Amount enhanced (Rs.) Loss of Dependency 3,12,120 Loss of Love & Affection for two children @ Rs. 25,000 each 50,000 Loss of Consortium 50,000 Funeral Expenses 5,000 Total 4,17,120 4. Are Respondents 3 to 5 liable to pay Compensation? They are officials of the State and are in no way connected with the accident per se. They are neither primarily liable nor secondarily nor even remotely. The cause that brought these Respondents before the Court was that the offending Vehicle that belonged to the Second Respondent was not insured. Caught in a sense of helplessness on their perceived improbability of realising the Compensation from the Owner of the Vehicle, the Claimants/Appellants appear to stretch their anxiety to transfer liability on the Government and its officials. It appears to stem from their belief that it was the officials' failure to ensure that the offending Vehicle was insured in terms of Section 146 of the MV Act, has imperilled their chances of realising the Compensation awarded. 5. The predicament of the Appellants is understandable. However, to shift the obligation to pay Compensation on Respondents 1 to 3 appears farfetched. If Section 146 of the M.V. Act is closely scrutinized it imposes a Statutory duty only on the Owner or user of a Motor Vehicle to insure it at least to the extent provided for in Section 147 of the Act. It is inviolable. And, any violation thereof is termed penal under Section 196 of the Act. Both the duty to insure a Motor Vehicle and the consequence of its breach are Owner or user centric. It is inviolable. And, any violation thereof is termed penal under Section 196 of the Act. Both the duty to insure a Motor Vehicle and the consequence of its breach are Owner or user centric. To expatiate it further, it is for those who fall within the operative ambit of the Statute to comply with its requirements, which in the instant case is the duty to insure the Motor Vehicle, and he should face the consequence who disobeys law. There can therefore, neither be a transitive nor transferred liability on Respondents 3 to 5 unless there is a Statutory possibility for sustaining a claim, which will be discussed in subsequent Paragraphs. At any rate Claims Tribunal is not the forum before which a claim such as the one can be agitated. In a similar but not a parallel situation that arose in Bhola Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1982 HP 11 : 1982 ACJ 99 an accident took place due to the sagging of the road and the Court was faced with a question if the Government as Owner of roads can be made liable in an action before MACT. In K.S. Chayadevi v. Corporation of City of Bangalore, 2003 ACJ 999 (Kant), a Scooterist, who hit a pot-hole approached the MACT to claim Compensation against the City Corporation. In both the cases it was held that MACT has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. This Court is in absolute concurrence with the aforesaid view. 6.1. Is there then a Statutory possibility to hold Respondents 3 to 5 liable for the failure of the Second Respondent to insure his Vehicle? More particularly, can the Registering Authority or the Superintendent of Police be said to have failed in discharging their duty for the failure of the Owner of a Vehicle to comply with Section 146 of the Act, and consequently should be exposed to any liability to a third party victim of a Road Accident? Primarily, there is no such duty statutorily imposed on a Registering Authority for him to violate. The Legislature's anxiety in enforcing Section 146 of the Act is stopped with it enjoining a penalty for its non-compliance under Section 196 of the Act. Primarily, there is no such duty statutorily imposed on a Registering Authority for him to violate. The Legislature's anxiety in enforcing Section 146 of the Act is stopped with it enjoining a penalty for its non-compliance under Section 196 of the Act. In comparison to the immeasurable damage that an uninsured vehicle unleashes on its victim, the punishment prescribed under Section 196 for violation of Section 146 is a painless sentence up to three months' Imprisonment or Fine of Rs. 1,000 or both, which mostly will end up with an imposition of fine merely. Even under the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2016, the amendment brought to Section 196 is cosmetic. In real terms there exists no power in a Registering Authority to resort to any coercive steps to bring those who violate Section 146 to its submission. A curious situation that may be referred to here is that the Insurance Companies are required to inform the concerned Regional Transport Officer about any cancellation of a Policy as per its General Regulations. Looking from the other side, what would the RTO do with the information so received when he has no power to deal with it? 6.2. It needs to be stated that the Statutory back-up required to ensure the due compliance of Section 146 is essentially seen in its omission. Sections 53 to 55 of the Act which deals with suspension and/or cancellation of registration do not consider non-compliance of Section 146 as a ground for invoking them. There is only an interpretational possibility in Section 53 of the Act, which provides for suspension of registration of a Motor Vehicle if its use poses a danger to public. It now throws open a point if the phrase 'danger to public' should include non-compliance of Section 146 obligation, to ponder over. It does not end here. There is no provision even to disqualify a driver for driving an uninsured Vehicle. 6.3. Turning to the liability if any, of the Superintendent of Police, even a Policeman on the road cannot seize a Vehicle under Section 207 of the Act for want of an Insurance cover, for the power of seizure is granted to deal only with violations involving driving without Licence, using Motor Vehicles without registration or permit, all of which can be brought under the regulatory aspect of MV Act. The Statutory scheme of MV Act hence appears to go soft on the violators of the only provision (other than Section 140 of the Act) which is critical to its character as a beneficial legislation and confers benefit on the general road users: Section 146. 7. Doesn't the MV Act, therefore, silently create a class of Road Accident victims to whom tangible justice is possibly denied for want of an Insurance cover? The case in hand is a pointer to this. And, there are many such cases. The legislative ideal in trusting the good conscience of the Vehicle-Owners for complying with Section 146 obligation has only managed to exclude a class of litigants from the beneficial effects of the Statute. Its working is suspect. There is therefore, a compelling need for a legislatorial introspection to bring in legislative corrections to make severe the consequences of non-insurance in terms of Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It should be inscribed in every heart and every soul that the vibrancy of the legal system does not stop with providing a litigant a forum for accessing justice but in ensuring that he is not denied justice he is entitled to, and in helping him to feel justice, experience justice and hold justice with satisfaction. If ignored, Ubi jus ibi remedium will be reduced to an empty maxim in legalese, a danger the legislature should endeavour to avert. 8. A solution to the challenge is not beyond reach. It requires an Integrated Software linking the Insurance Companies, RTOs, Police and toll gates on the Express Highways. Here, the State Crimes Research Bureau should explore the feasibility of expanding its operational net of 'Crimes and Criminal Tracking Network System (CCTNS)' that it is developing to address the issue raised here as it might enable the tracking of Vehicles without Insurance with greater co-ordination. And, if the legislature too joins hands to fill up the vacant spaces in the statute, the menace can be effectively addressed. 9.1. On the side lines of the above topic, another aspect concerning Road Accidents cannot be ignored. It needs to be emphasised that in a country where there is a high incidence of Road Accidents, the Statutory and social response to meet the challenge is lukewarm. 9.1. On the side lines of the above topic, another aspect concerning Road Accidents cannot be ignored. It needs to be emphasised that in a country where there is a high incidence of Road Accidents, the Statutory and social response to meet the challenge is lukewarm. The general depreciation in social responsibility, diminishing respect for the life and property of the another road user put a premium on the irresponsibility of those, who use Motor Vehicle on the road when it ought to be the contrary. Even Sections 279, 336, 337, 338 & 304-A, IPC that criminalise negligent driving if it endangers or leads to an injury or death of another, struggle to sustain the contemporary relevance of reformative and deterrent theories of Criminal Jurisprudence due to its waning ability in infusing in automobile drivers the requisite sense of duty to care an innocent road user. Here the law enforcing agency cannot be angelised either. The indifference is complete when those who are enjoined with the Authority under Sections 19 to 22 of the MV Act that provides for cancellation of License by the Licensing Authority, or Court initiated disqualification of the driver, or Court assisted suspension and cancellation of Driving License, have spared their use often that even a small doze of deterrence and responsibility that it could have injected is lost to the society. It is, therefore, a shame partly on the penal law and partly on the manner of its enforcement. 9.2. The compensatory justice however, is done to an extent under the Motor Vehicle Act but the mandatory Third party Insurance insisted by it ensures that except in isolated cases of default in insuring the Vehicles, the liability is borne by the Insurance Company. Consequently, there is hardly any financial pain on the Driver/Owner of a Motor Vehicle, a moral hazard of sort, to discipline their attitude towards fellow users of the road. This apart there is another category of apparently innocent road users who flout the rules of the road at will and induce accidents. 9.3. Taking a short deviation to complete the topic, it may also be added that road maintenance is an area of concern that should have been accorded a higher priority than what it enjoys now. This apart there is another category of apparently innocent road users who flout the rules of the road at will and induce accidents. 9.3. Taking a short deviation to complete the topic, it may also be added that road maintenance is an area of concern that should have been accorded a higher priority than what it enjoys now. Those, who lose their lives or limbs due to poor road conditions, are but painful testimonials of the nature of the roads, something the country cannot feel proud of. They are passive victims of administrative indifference and they essentially go unaccounted for in our legal system. Let it not be believed that they are victims of Act of God; understand they are victims of plain Act of Men. 10.1. The cumulative effect of this combined irresponsibility if let to continue, our roads would soon transform into killer tracks, if they have not already become one. Where then lies the blame? How many of those, who are on the road driving a Motor Vehicle have valid Driving Licence? How many times Court has come to the rescue of a Driver without a License as a Third party-victim? How can someone in this country be tempted to drive a Motor Vehicle without a Licence or Insurance cover with impunity? How often road conditions induce accidents? With toleration to this naked irresponsibility being stretched to its elastic limits, what answers has the legal system in its kitty in response? In this country a tendency is fast seeping in the social psyche not to own the law. An attitude that 'obeisance to law belongs to the neighbour and benevolence thereof belongs to me' is gaining ground and becoming viral. A tool available to root out this lies in stern enforcement of available law, now and immediately, supplemented adequately by systemised awareness programmes. 10.2. Time has therefore, come for every road user and everyone associated with road safety to realise and believe that it is a violation of human right to injure or kill an innocent road user either actively or passively as it destroys both the life of the victim and that of his family. 10.2. Time has therefore, come for every road user and everyone associated with road safety to realise and believe that it is a violation of human right to injure or kill an innocent road user either actively or passively as it destroys both the life of the victim and that of his family. Every time a Driver plugs in his seat belt to secure himself, it should alert his consciousness of his duty to care for the safety of another road user and accord their lives as dominant a respect as he would give his own. Neither affluence nor affordability nor Authority nor arrogance of their combination, nor even ignorance of any of these shall grant anyone a Licence to transgress on the right to life of another. 11. Ours is a country where there is no dearth of workable law, but still most laws do not work due to lack of seriousness in enforcing it. Ordinary aspects like regulating Traffic, wearing Helmets, Road Safety, kind of Vehicles that should ply on the road, etc., do not belong to Courts' domain yet they are decided by them. However, no hope is lost yet, and no time is too late, as correctives can still be brought in through a holistic and integrated approach to road safety. This surely can unburden the judiciary. 12. A beginning lies in activating the available minimum. As indicated earlier, Sections 19 to 22 of the MV Act (continuing with Sections 23 to 25) and Section 196 echo the limited Statutory concern for arresting Drivers' and Owners' irresponsibility, and they should find expression in action. Preventive and proactive initiative in preference to reducing the destiny of Road Accident victims to the mercy of few numbers - some arithmetics - guided compensatory justice, should be the propelling force in making it happen. 13. Hence (a) all the Licensing Authorities, Law Enforcing Agencies and Courts are directed to invoke Sections 19 to 22 & Section 196 of the MV Act to the extent they relate to the respective sphere of their duties wherever their use is warranted by the facts and circumstance of the case. 13. Hence (a) all the Licensing Authorities, Law Enforcing Agencies and Courts are directed to invoke Sections 19 to 22 & Section 196 of the MV Act to the extent they relate to the respective sphere of their duties wherever their use is warranted by the facts and circumstance of the case. In every case there shall be a speaking Order giving reasons for exercising the said powers; (b) The Crimes Research Bureau is required to conduct a feasibility study involving all the stakeholders that may include those, who are in the original team responsible for developing CCTNS, Transport Commissioner, Insurance Companies and such other Individual or Authority whose participation is considered necessary for expanding the operational scope of CCTNS to track down the uninsured Vehicles. Reverting back to the case at hand, this Appeal is partially allowed and the Claimants are held entitled to a Compensation of Rs. 4,17,120 with Interest at 9% p.a. and the same is realisable solely from Respondents 1 & 2. The amount herein declared as payable to the Claimants/Appellants shall be apportioned among them in the same ratio in which the Tribunal has apportioned it. The Claimants are directed to pay additional Court-fee, if remained to be paid on the enhanced portion of the Compensation. No Costs.