Advocates for the new compensation mechanism argue that the current system is fundamentally broken for the average citizen. When a family is struck by a tragedy on the road, the last thing they should be doing is engaging in a multi-year legal battle to prove fault. By moving toward a more streamlined, perhaps no-fault, system, the government is prioritizing the immediate welfare of victims over the rigid requirements of civil litigation.
This approach is seen as a vital social safety net. In many cases, the breadwinner of a family is incapacitated or killed, leaving dependents with no income and mounting medical bills. A government-backed or regulated fund would ensure that these families receive a baseline level of support immediately, regardless of the complexities of the accident investigation. This provides a sense of security that the current system simply cannot offer.
Furthermore, proponents suggest that this could actually lower overall costs for the justice system. By diverting smaller or clear-cut cases away from the courts, the judiciary can focus its resources on more complex legal disputes. This efficiency gain benefits the entire legal infrastructure, reducing the backlog of cases that currently plagues the courts.
Ultimately, this policy is about human dignity. It acknowledges that road accidents are an unfortunate reality of modern life and that the state has a responsibility to ensure that victims are not left destitute while waiting for the wheels of justice to turn. If implemented correctly, this could serve as a model for social protection in the region, setting a new standard for how governments care for their citizens after traumatic events.