|
Will good intentions on
accidents also get killed on the road?
Mansukh Kaur
 When Satyajit
Ray was to make his masterpiece Pather panchali, he asked everyone
for money but it was finally the West Bengal PWD that came to his
rescue. WHy was the Public Works Department funding the movie about
poverty and a dark picture of India? Because Pather Panchali
literally meant "Song of the Road" and since the PWD constructs
roads, it could be justified to some glorified clerk officer.
Unfortunately,
the only song of the road that you listen to in the news everyday is
about deaths on the roads. India is allowing itself the the dubious
distinction of being high on the list of countries with the most
road accidents.
Also, there are
no budgetary provisions for compensating the victims of road
accidents, or their families.
Appalled by the
plight of 20,000-odd families who lose their near and dear in
hit-and-run cases every year and fail to get a single penny in
compensation because the rogue vehicle remains untraceable, the
Supreme Court has now asked the Parliament to take new legislative
measures.
It has urged
lawmakers to explore the possibility of levying additional fuel
levy/surcharge on sale of petrol and diesel, or collecting a
one-time (lifetime) third party insurance premium by a central
agency from every new vehicle sold, or a mixture of these two.
But what should
bother us the most is the manner in which road accident victims are
often left to die unattended.
There are major
loopholes in compensation for victims of hit-and-run accidents,
vehicles with only third-party insurance, and accidents involving
uninsured vehicles. Thus the Supreme Court's suggestion: imposing a
cess on the price of petrol and diesel. This, together with a
one-time insurance premium on each vehicle sold, would then be
collected in a special accident fund which could be paid out to all
victims.
The concept is
clever. A pooled insurance scheme, with a premium paid automatically
at petrol pumps, makes economic sense. Charging those on the roads a
mandatory premium would be a good move on from the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. But this idea also raises concerns. The most obvious
question: how will the fund be monitored? Another concern is that it
might let our un-reformed insurance off too easily. Insurance
agencies' grievances — that they fork out four times as much in
compensation as compared to their premiums — get addressed through
the special accident fund; but this is not a move towards a more
comprehensive regime. That monitoring such a fund may be challenging
is acknowledged by the court.
However, at the
heart of the matter lies road safety. Road rules and regulations
need reform. Further, that the insurance cover on many cars is
frequently not renewed is a sign of negligence — on the part of both
the driver and transport authorities. A better, more universal
compensation policy will inevitably build on outdated policies; but
the test will be the implementation.
13
January 2010
|
Read Also