Context-After Gujarat, other states to reduce fines under Motor Vehicles Act.

About

• The move by some states to reduce fines comes amid rising furore over hefty penalties being imposed for violating traffic rules. Among several cases reported last week, a man driving a two-wheeler in Delhi was fined a whopping 23,000 for not wearing a helmet and not carrying vehicle-related documents. Similarly, a truck driver in Odisha was fined 86,500, but after a five-hour negotiation, reportedly, the driver paid 70,000 as fine.
• Gujarat government announced a reduction in fines on “humanitarian grounds", other states such as Karnataka and Uttarakhand have decided to follow suit
• Meanwhile, Maharashtra, has urged the Centre to reconsider and reduce the stiff penalties proposed under the law.
• West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee has said she will not implement the higher penalties, calling them “harsh"

Can states revise fines under motor vehicle act?

• Motor Vehicles Act falls in the concurrent list, and states as well as the Centre can revise and frame rules under the amended act.
• States can revise fines for more than two dozen provisions that are compoundable, but penalties for non-compoundable offences—where the nature of the offence is grave—cannot be revised.

Background

•  The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2019 was introduced in Lok Sabha on July 15, 2019 by the Minister for Road Transport and Highways, and passed by Rjya sabha on july 31,2019. The Bill seeks to amend the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to provide for road safety. 
• Compensation for road accident victims: The central government will develop a scheme for cashless treatment of road accident victims during golden hour.  The Bill defines golden hour as the time period of up to one hour following a traumatic injury, during which the likelihood of preventing death through prompt medical care is the highest.  The central government may also make a scheme for providing interim relief to claimants seeking compensation under third party insurance.  The Bill increases the minimum compensation for hit and run cases as follows: (i) in case of death, from Rs 25,000 to two lakh rupees, and (ii) in case of grievous injury, from Rs 12,500 to Rs 50,000.
   
• Compulsory insurance: The Bill requires the central government to constitute a Motor Vehicle Accident Fund, to provide compulsory insurance cover to all road users in India.  It will be utilised for: (i) treatment of persons injured in road accidents as per the golden hour scheme, (ii) compensation to representatives of a person who died in a hit and run accident, (iii) compensation to a person grievously hurt in a hit and run accident, and (iv) compensation to any other persons as prescribed by the central government.  This Fund will be credited through: (i) payment of a nature notified by the central government, (ii) a grant or loan made by the central government, (iii) balance of the Solatium Fund (existing fund under the Act to provide compensation for hit and run accidents), or (iv) any other source as prescribed the central government. 
   
• Good samaritans: The Bill defines a good samaritan as a person who renders emergency medical or non-medical assistance to a victim at the scene of an accident.  The assistance must have been (i) in good faith, (ii) voluntary, and (iii) without the expectation of any reward.  Such a person will not be liable for any civil or criminal action for any injury to or death of an accident victim, caused due to their negligence in providing assistance to the victim. 
   
• Recall of vehicles: The Bill allows the central government to order for recall of motor vehicles if a defect in the vehicle may cause damage to the environment, or the driver, or other road users.  The manufacturer of the recalled vehicle will be required to: (i) reimburse the buyers for the full cost of the vehicle, or (ii) replace the defective vehicle with another vehicle with similar or better specifications.  
   
• National Transportation Policy: The central government may develop a National Transportation Policy, in consultation with state governments.  The Policy will: (i) establish a planning framework for road transport, (ii) develop a framework for grant of permits, and (iii) specify priorities for the transport system, among other things. 
   
• Road Safety Board: The Bill provides for a National Road Safety Board, to be created by the central government through a notification.  The Board will advise the central and state governments on all aspects of road safety and traffic management including: (i) standards of motor vehicles, (ii) registration and licensing of vehicles, (iii) standards for road safety, and (iv) promotion of new vehicle technology.
   
• Offences and penalties: The Bill increases penalties for several offences under the Act.  For example, the maximum penalty for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs has been increased from Rs 2,000 to Rs 10,000.  If a vehicle manufacturer fails to comply with motor vehicle standards, the penalty will be a fine of up to Rs 100 crore, or imprisonment of up to one year, or both.  If a contractor fails to comply with road design standards, the penalty will be a fine of up to one lakh rupees.  The central government may increase fines mentioned under the Act every year by up to 10%. 
   
• Taxi aggregators: The Bill defines aggregators as digital intermediaries or market places which can be used by passengers to connect with a driver for transportation purposes (taxi services).  These aggregators will be issued licenses by state  Further, they must comply with the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Concerns

• Opposition by some states due to very high fines.
• Concerns have been raised regarding dilution of Power of state in terms of granting license and other work.
• Bill is missing the link in terms of whether the Centre or State will bear the cost of electronic monitoring of roads and highways to improve safety, and improving the road design through engineering design corrections.
• This bill is criticized on account of hefty penalties for vehicles, which will not give way to Ambulance. Concern has been raised about how to know that, who has not given way intentionally.
• Many also raised the question of the effectiveness of making a Road Safety Board with only advisory powers, instead of making it responsible for deciding road-building standards