1 hour ago
4
A tragic road accident case has thrown into the spotlight a troubling legal gap in India’s road accident compensation framework — what happens when a vehicle involved in a fatal crash has no third-party insurance, and the driver responsible also dies or leaves behind no attachable assets.
In an ongoing case before the Patiala House Courts here, presided over by judge Abhilash Malhotra, the court is examining the death of Surender Kumar Ahirwar, a cyclist who was killed in a collision with a car in Delhi in 2024. The car, driven by Vishnu, struck the cyclist and then crashed into a pole. Both men died in the accident.
Ahirwar is survived by his wife and two minor children. Vishnu’s elderly parents, who appeared before the court, stated they live in a jhuggi settlement and inherited no property from their deceased son.
Uninsured vehicle, no recoverable estate
The car was uninsured at the time of the accident. The court had earlier directed auction of the 2014-model vehicle, but the claimant’s counsel argued that the sale would not fetch sufficient funds to meaningfully compensate the victim’s family.
Since the driver-cum-owner died in the same accident and left behind no estate from which compensation could be recovered, this has effectively left the victim’s dependents without a clear avenue for relief.
The case assumes significance in light of recent data placed before the Lok Sabha by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. As per the Ministry, 14,31,53,420 vehicles on Indian roads were uninsured, compared to 17,54,37,351 insured vehicles, based on Vahan 4.0 and Insurance Information Bureau of India records.
Based on the figures, roughly 45% of vehicles on Indian roads are uninsured, while about 55% are insured. The largest share of uninsured vehicles falls in the two-wheeler category.
Schemes don’t apply
The court had sought assistance from the New Delhi District Legal Services Authority (NDDLSA), which clarified that its compensation scheme applies only to hit-and-run cases where the offender is untraced. Since the driver in this case was identified, the matter falls outside that framework.
The claimant’s counsel also pointed out that the case does not qualify under the Cashless Treatment of Road Accident Victims Scheme, 2025, nor under the Scheme for Compensation to Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents, 2021.
Finding merit in these submissions, the judge Malhotra observed that: “There is a clear policy vacuum and the family of the victim/cyclist cannot be left to struggle with fate”.
The court, in its order passed on January 31, has requested the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) to assist it on whether any government scheme can cover such exceptional cases.
A wider national problem
Under Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no vehicle can be driven in a public place without valid third-party insurance. In the landmark case of S. Rajaseekaran vs Union of India, the Supreme Court mandated in 2018 that new cars must carry three-year third-party insurance and two-wheelers five-year coverage to curb the growing number of uninsured vehicles, leaving accident victims uncompensated.
Speaking to The Hindu, Mr. Gorang Goyal, empanelled legal aid counsel with NDDLSA, who appeared for the claimant, said: “This case exposes a policy gap in India’s road accident compensation framework.”
He suggested that expanding the Motor Vehicle Accident Fund to cover uninsured-but-identified cases where recovery is impossible would ensure that compensation does not depend on the financial condition of the responsible person.
“In this case, the deceased cyclist was the sole earning member, survived by his wife and two minor children. For this family, such compensation could fund children’s education, basic livelihood, and debt relief, preventing lifelong poverty after losing their sole male earner,” he added.
English (US) ·