Safiya Malik

The Patna High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the validity of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal (Constitution and Service Condition) Rules, 2023. The petitioners sought to have the rules declared ultra vires, arbitrary, and beyond jurisdiction, particularly contesting the reduction in the number of Tribunals and the appointment process for the Tribunal's members. The court, however, upheld the legality of the rules, concluding that they were in consonance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The court stated: “The challenge in these writ petitions therefore fails. All the writ petitions are dismissed. All the Interlocutory application/s, if any, also stands disposed off.”

The writ petitions were filed challenging the Bihar Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2023, which were notified by the State Government. The petitioners contended that these rules were inconsistent with Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The primary objections raised included the reduction in the number of Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunals from a district-level to a divisional-level structure, which the petitioners argued restricted access to justice. Concerns were also raised regarding the constitution of the Selection Committee, which was alleged to be dominated by administrative officers, contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2021) 7 SCC 369. Another challenge was the retrospective application of the rules from April 1, 2019, which the petitioners claimed was unjust and contrary to established principles of law. Additionally, it was alleged that the rules prohibited advocates from appearing before the Tribunals, a claim that was denied by the State.

The High Court examined the validity of the rules in light of the statutory framework under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It observed that under Sections 165 and 176 of the Act, the State Government was empowered to establish Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and determine their jurisdiction. The court recorded: “The State Government’s power to make rules constituting one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals is clearly established.”

Regarding the claim that the rules violated Section 166(2) of the Act, which allows claimants to file petitions in multiple jurisdictions, the court found no merit in the argument, stating: “The rules of 2023 do not infringe, in any way, the freedom of selection of Claims Tribunal of its choice in accordance with Section 166 (2) of the Parent Act.”

On the issue of the Tribunal's composition, the court noted that amendments had been introduced to align the rules with judicial precedents. The revised Screening Committee now includes a judicial representative, thereby addressing concerns of executive overreach. The court further referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan (2016) 8 SCC 509, which laid down the essential components of access to justice. Applying this standard, the High Court held: “The Tribunals so constituted provide an effective adjudicatory mechanism, which is in consonance with the provisions of Section 166 (2) of the Parent Act.”

The court also took cognizance of the development of an online claims portal, stating: “For filing claim applications, an online portal has been developed by the State Government for the convenience of accident victims, considering their physical as well as mental conditions.”

In dismissing the petitions, the court concluded that the rules, as amended, met constitutional and statutory requirements. It found that the reduction in the number of Tribunals, the selection process for Tribunal members, and the introduction of an online portal did not violate the fundamental right to access justice.

Case Title: The General Insurance Council v. State of Bihar & Ors.

Case Number: CWJC No. 480 of 2024 & Connested matters

Bench: Acting Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy

[Read/Download order]