Bombay High Court Calls for Special Appellate Tribunal for Motor Accident and Railway Claims

In a recent order passed in April 2026, the Bombay High Court highlighted a severe systemic problem in the disposal of motor accident and railway compensation appeals. Justice Jitendra Jain, while dismissing an appeal filed by The Oriental Insurance Company Limited against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award of Rs 74,422, observed that the appeal had waited 15 years just to come up for admission. The Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Ministry of Finance for appropriate consideration on establishing a specialised Appellate Tribunal. The recommendation addresses a crisis of delay that affects lakhs of accident victims and their families across India.

The Scale of Pendency

The numbers cited by the Court are striking. In Maharashtra alone, approximately 86,000 original petitions were pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as of April 2026. At the appellate level, around 18,000 appeals were pending before the Bombay High Court. The problem is not confined to Maharashtra. The Court noted that approximately 12,500 appeals were pending before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, 14,500 before the Telangana High Court, and 34,000 before the Kerala High Court. These figures illustrate a nationwide backlog that turns the right to compensation into a hollow promise for many accident victims. A 15-year wait for an appeal to be heard means that many claimants, particularly those with serious injuries or the dependents of deceased victims, spend years without the compensation they are legally entitled to.

Current Appellate Structure Under the Motor Vehicles Act

Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, appeals from MACT awards lie to the High Court. This means that every contested motor accident claim, regardless of the amount involved, must compete for hearing time on the High Court's regular cause list alongside constitutional matters, civil appeals, criminal matters, and writ petitions. The High Courts were never designed to function as specialised appellate forums for accident compensation cases. The result is predictable: motor accident appeals are repeatedly adjourned, and the sheer volume of cases creates a bottleneck that defeats the purpose of the no-fault liability and just compensation framework that the Motor Vehicles Act was designed to provide. The Railway Claims Tribunal, established under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, faces a similar problem at the appellate stage, with appeals going to the High Court under Section 23 of the Act.

The Court's Recommendation: A Specialised Appellate Tribunal

The Bombay High Court recommended that the Central Government consider establishing a specialised Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals from both MACT awards and Railway Claims Tribunal orders. The Court observed that such a tribunal would be a specialised body, staffed with members who have domain expertise in accident compensation law, and would be in a position to dispose of appeals in a much shorter span of time than what is generally taken by the High Court. The Court suggested that the proposed tribunal should be headed by a retired High Court Judge, which would ensure judicial quality while freeing up High Court benches for other matters. This recommendation is consistent with the broader trend of establishing specialised tribunals for specific categories of disputes, such as the National Company Law Tribunal for corporate matters, the National Green Tribunal for environmental cases, and the Real Estate Regulatory Authority appellate tribunals for real estate disputes.

Constitutional and Legislative Considerations

Establishing such a tribunal would require legislative action. The Central Government would need to amend the Motor Vehicles Act and potentially the Railway Claims Tribunal Act to transfer appellate jurisdiction from the High Courts to the new tribunal. Any such legislation would need to satisfy the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261, which held that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution cannot be excluded, even when a tribunal is established. This means the High Courts would retain supervisory jurisdiction over the proposed tribunal, but the day-to-day burden of hearing thousands of motor accident appeals would be transferred to a dedicated forum equipped to handle the volume.

Practical Implications for Claimants and Insurers

For accident victims and their families, the current delay in appellate proceedings means prolonged financial hardship. Many MACT claimants are from economically weaker sections who depend on compensation for medical treatment, rehabilitation, and daily sustenance. A 15-year appellate wait effectively denies them justice. For insurance companies, the backlog ties up reserves against pending claims and creates uncertainty in actuarial calculations. A specialised tribunal with faster disposal timelines would benefit both sides. The Bombay High Court's recommendation now rests with the Central Government. Whether the Ministry of Law and Justice takes it forward as a legislative proposal remains to be seen, but the data on pendency and the human cost of delay make a compelling case for structural reform in how motor accident appeals are handled in India.