Bike to bike accident

Dear Sir,

Apply for Bail (If Not Already)

Both sections are bailable

Police cannot keep you in custody unnecessarily

If FIR is registered → approach JMFC Court, Kannur

Collect Evidence in Your Defence

Very important for future:

Accident spot photographs

CCTV footage (shops, traffic cameras)

Vehicle damage photos

Wound certificate of injured (to check if “grievous” is correctly classified)

Witness statements (neutral witnesses help a lot)

Dear Client,
In the hit-and-run case, police filed an FIR on both the persons involved in a road accident under Sec. 279 of IPC(now Section 281 of BNS) for rash and negligent driving and Section 337 of IPC (now Section 125 of BNS) for causing hurt to any person. Both offenses are cognizable and bailable offence and triable by a Magistrate. In motor accident cases both the owner and driver of the vehicles are liable to face prosecution proceedings initiated before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal once an FIR is lodged in the police station in hit and run case and the legal heirs of the deceased victim and the injured persons apply to the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 within six months of the occurrence of the accident. If the vehicles of both parties are insured, then whoever is proven guilty of the accident, his or her Insurance Company has to pay the compensation to the injured person if the cause of the accident meets the conditions of the Insurance policy. When both parties in a road accident lack insurance and/or valid driving licenses, the registered owner of the vehicle involved is liable to pay compensation for the injuries or damages caused. Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended in 2019) states that the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to pay compensation of five lakh rupees in case of death or two and a half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. You have to establish the fact before the Court denying that you were not driving the vehicle rashly and that the accident arose not on account of your negligence. You have to take the defense that in spite of cautious driving you met with an accident. In this context, the judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Senjuti Roy (Nee Sengupta) VS New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the judgment passed by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ganesh Bairwa VS Ramphool Bairwa may be referred. In view of the complexity of the motor accident cases, it is better if you can engage an Advocate experienced in MACT cases to navigate the issue effectively.