By Adv. Amarjeet Singh, Founder, PRAN – Policy Research Action Network Foundation

Bridging the Justice Gap: Can Interim Compensation Transform Motor Accident Justice in India?

Analysing the Government's Proposal to Empower MACTs to Grant Interim Compensation

📰 In the News

The issue recently entered the national policy discourse following a report published in The Times of India titled "Driving test for repeat offenders, interim compensation for crash victims on cards" (6 July 2026), authored by Special Correspondent Dipak K. Dash.

The report highlights the Government's reported proposal to introduce a statutory mechanism enabling MACTs to grant interim compensation to road accident victims during the pendency of compensation proceedings, along with other proposed road safety reforms. I had the opportunity to comment on the proposal in the report:

"The move to allow interim compensation by MACT tribunals is welcome considering that such cases often face delays in final disposal."

I thank The Times of India and Mr. Dipak K. Dash for including my views in this important national discussion on road safety and victim compensation. See the news for details at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/driving-test-for-repeat-offenders-interim-compensation-for-crash-victims-on-cards/articleshow/132202904.cms

"Justice delayed is justice denied" is more than a legal maxim. For thousands of road accident victims, delayed compensation can mean interrupted medical treatment, mounting debt, loss of livelihood, and prolonged uncertainty.

Every road accident creates two battles. The first is the struggle for survival. The second begins after the victim leaves the hospital—the long journey through legal proceedings, insurance claims, medical rehabilitation, and financial hardship.

While emergency treatment demands immediate financial resources, compensation proceedings before Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) frequently take years to conclude. This gap between injury and relief remains one of the weakest links in India's road accident compensation framework.

Against this backdrop, the Union Government's reported proposal to empower MACTs to grant interim compensation represents one of the most significant victim-centric reforms under consideration in recent years.

From Road Safety to Post-Accident Justice

This proposal resonates with concerns I previously raised in my opinion article, "Justice Unserved: Why the Forgotten Phase of Road Accidents Needs Urgent Reform," published by The Hindu and reproduced on the PRAN website.

That article argued that India's road safety discourse has traditionally focused on preventing accidents while paying comparatively little attention to what happens after an accident occurs.

For accident victims and their families, the real challenges often begin only after the crash:

prolonged hospitalization;
permanent disability;
loss of employment;
rehabilitation;
insurance disputes; and
lengthy compensation proceedings.

Road safety must therefore be understood not merely as preventing accidents but also as ensuring timely justice and effective rehabilitation for those affected.

The Government's latest proposal appears to acknowledge one of these long-standing structural concerns.

Key Takeaways

✔ The proposal is not yet law.

✔ Presently, MACTs have no general statutory power to grant interim compensation in pending Section 166 claims.

✔ Section 164 provides statutory no-fault compensation but is not equivalent to interim compensation during litigation.

✔ If enacted, the proposal could significantly improve access to justice for road accident victims.

What Does the Law Provide Today?

Understanding the current legal framework is essential before assessing the proposed reform.

Earlier Position: Section 140

Before the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act provided no-fault compensation.

Victims could receive immediate statutory compensation without proving negligence:

₹50,000 in case of death;
₹25,000 in case of permanent disablement.

This amount was later adjusted against the final award. However, Section 140 was omitted following the 2019 amendment.

Present Position: Section 164

The current no-fault compensation provision is Section 164.

It provides:

₹5 lakh for death; and
₹2.5 lakh for grievous hurt,

without requiring proof of negligence.

While Section 164 is an important social welfare provision, it is not designed as an interim compensation mechanism during the pendency of a fault-based compensation claim. This distinction is often overlooked in public discussions.

Claims under Section 166

Most accident compensation cases continue to be filed under Section 166.

These proceedings generally require:

proof of negligence;
documentary evidence;
medical records;
examination of witnesses;
assessment of disability or dependency; and
determination of liability.

Consequently, proceedings frequently remain pending for several years.

At present, there is no express statutory provision empowering MACTs to routinely grant interim monetary relief simply because the claim petition is pending.

Why Existing Compensation Mechanisms Are Not Enough

One of the most common misconceptions is that Section 164 already solves the problem. It does not.

Section 164 creates a separate statutory compensation regime.

The Government's reported proposal addresses an entirely different issue.

· Consider a victim suffering spinal injuries.

· Medical expenses begin immediately.

· Income stops immediately.

· Rehabilitation begins immediately.

· Yet compensation proceedings may continue for years.

· The proposed interim compensation mechanism seeks to bridge precisely this gap.

What Has the Government Proposed?

According to the reported proposal, the Government intends to expressly empower MACTs to grant interim compensation before the final disposal of compensation claims.

The proposal reportedly also includes:

mandatory driving tests for repeat traffic offenders;
increasing the appeal threshold before High Courts from ₹1 lakh to ₹5 lakh; and
restrictions on fresh driving licences following licence revocation.

Among these proposals, interim compensation carries the greatest humanitarian significance.

Current Law vs Proposed Reform

Current Legal Position	Proposed Reform
No general statutory power for MACTs to grant interim compensation in pending Section 166 claims.	Express statutory authority for MACTs to grant interim compensation.
Victims frequently wait years for financial relief.	Early financial assistance during litigation.
No uniform nationwide mechanism.	Uniform statutory framework proposed.
Medical expenses remain immediate burdens.	Financial assistance during treatment and rehabilitation.

Many jurisdictions recognise that accident victims require financial assistance long before final judicial determination of liability. Various legal systems provide interim payments, advance insurance settlements, or structured compensation mechanisms that ensure victims receive timely support.

India's proposed reform reflects the same humanitarian principle: Compensation should respond to immediate human needs rather than only final judicial outcomes.

PRAN's Perspective

At the Policy Research Action Network (PRAN) Foundation, we believe that road safety policy should not conclude with accident prevention.

It must also encompass:

timely compensation;
rehabilitation;
legal aid;
insurance accountability; and
access to justice.

The proposed reform marks an important shift from a liability-centric model towards a victim-centric framework.

PRAN Recommendations

PRAN recommends that any legislative amendment should incorporate the following safeguards.

Legislative Measures

Clearly define eligibility for interim compensation.
Specify the stage at which applications may be entertained.
Ensure that interim compensation does not prejudice claims under Section 166.

Decide interim applications within 30–60 days.
Provide simplified procedures based on prima facie evidence.
Prescribe transparent adjustment against the final award.

Clearly identify whether insurers or the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund will initially bear liability.
Standardise procedures across all MACTs.
Introduce digital monitoring to ensure timely compliance.

Looking Beyond Compensation

The proposal should be viewed as part of a broader reform agenda. India's road safety framework should eventually integrate:

emergency medical care;
psychological counselling;
rehabilitation;
insurance settlement;
legal assistance; and
long-term victim support.

True road safety extends beyond preventing accidents—it includes restoring lives after accidents occur.

Conclusion

The Government's reported proposal to empower Motor Accident Claims Tribunals to grant interim compensation has the potential to redefine motor accident compensation in India.

If enacted with appropriate safeguards, it will represent more than a procedural amendment. It will recognise that justice is meaningful only when it reaches victims in time to make a difference.

Road safety should not end when the accident occurs.

It should continue until every victim receives timely medical care, meaningful financial assistance, effective rehabilitation, and fair access to justice.

That is the justice gap this proposal seeks to bridge—and one that PRAN Foundation will continue to address through research, legal advocacy, and evidence-based policy engagement.

Bridging the Justice Gap: Why the Proposed MACT Interim Compensation Reform is a Landmark Step

By Adv. Amarjeet Singh, Founder, PRAN – Policy Research Action Network Foundation