Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 51

44. Comments opposed for financial reasons.-

Some of the comments1 express opposition to the proposal on financial grounds. Thus, one High Court Judge2 has stated that there are many other needs of society which require to be attended to. Further, the basic question is, whether or not the financial resources of the State permit such a legislation.

"I have no doubt that there would be a large number of false and fictitious cases where people would claim compensation for 'injuries or deaths, even though not caused by automobiles but in some other manner, by setting up false witnesses to prove that the injuries or deaths had been caused by automobile. We cannot lose sight of the fact that wherever the State gives any financial assistance to the citizens, in the majority of cases they are received by people who do not deserve them. It is also the tendency in this country of the officials of the State to care the least to find out whether assistance goes to the right person or the wrong person. What is Government money is considered to be nobody's money, and is squandered away."

He has also stressed the need for preventive action to check accidents by vigilant action in directing traffic on the road and for licensing motor vehicles. Further, he adds,-

"In my view, it will be a pre-mature legislation and putting unnecessary burden on the State, when the country requires financial resources of the State to be utilised for much more important things than providing for compensation to the victims of accidents in cases of hit-and-run.".

1. S. No. 28 (One High Court Judge).

2. S. No. 28.

Compensation for Injuries caused by Automobiles in hit-and-run Cases Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys