Acts & Bills / Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill
30 July 22, 2019
therefore, have to heavily invest in instal-
lation of CCTV cameras, speed detectors
and training programmes for detection
squads. The Bill does not specify
whether the costs will be borne through
a central scheme or additional grants.
However, the Standing Commi ttee
examining the 2016 Bill recommen ded
that the central government should help
states with the technical expertise and
logistics to make roads safer.
At the moment, all taxi permits are
issued by state transport authorities.
The 1988 Act allows the state transport
authorities to attach additional condi-
tions to these permits such as the rate of
fare, the maximum number of passen-
gers, the requirement of meters in taxis
and so on. The states have framed
guide lines for taxi operations on various
as pects of services including operational
infrastructure, vehicle profile, driver’s
profile, grant of licences and taxi fare.
There could be cases where state
guidelines are different from central
guidelines. And if that is so, the central
guidelines will prevail as motor vehicle
laws fall under the Concurrent List in
the Seventh Schedule to the Constitu -
tion. However, the Standing Committee
examining the 2016 Bill recommended
that it should be optional for states to
follow central government guidelines on
aggregators. Both the state and the cen-
tre have to be in sync on road safety and
regulations. The World Bank rightly
said: “Road safety goes beyond the
transport sector, with a direct impact on
public health, societies and economies.
Likewise, because road safety is an in -
her ently cross-sectorial issue, real prog -
ress can only happen if all relevant
stakeholders unite their efforts.”A
nother issue is that even though
an insurance customer doesn’t
claim damages and gets the no-
claim bonus, the insurance amount
dished out by him as renewal is almost
the same as the previous year or even
more. This is because insurance compa-
nies have been reporting losses in the
third party insurance business and have
increased premiums under one pretext
or the other.
One recommendation of the Nation -
al Transportation Development Policy
Committee was that those making badly
designed roads should be held responsi-
ble for accidents and not drivers. Roads
should be designed in such a way that
the driver behaviour would weigh to -
wards opting for safer alternatives. It
pointed out that countries like Sweden
and Australia recognised that humans
would make errors, and therefore, foc -
used on designing road transport sys-
tems that minimised human errors.India can learn from that. Countries like
the US, Australia and Sweden hold gov-
ernment agencies responsible for traffic
safety and management. However, in
India, various bodies are responsible
and so there is no effective coordination
bet ween them and this results in com-
plete confusion.
The Sundar Committee on Road
Safety pointed out that the bodies con-
cerned did not have the capacity to do
their jobs. Surprisingly, the National
Road Safety Council also does not have
adequate statutory backing, resources or
the mandate to deal with road safety.
The Committee recommended setting
up of Road Safety and Traffic Manage -
ment Boards at the national and state
levels which would set standards, con-
duct audits of roads, lay down vehicle
safety features, conduct road safety re -
search and recommend guidelines on
driver licensing and vehicle registration.
As road safety is of paramount imp -
ortance, it is hoped this Bill will be
passed this time.Twitter: @indialegalmedia
Website: http://www.indialegallive.com
Contact: [email protected]“The Bill has many progressive firsts and
can transform the road safety scenario. It
has robust road safety provisions and
rectifies the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.”
—Piyush Tewari , Safe Life FoundationTOUGH PROVISIONS
The Bill has substantially increased the
maximum penalty for drunk driversUNI