1) This MACMA is preferred by the claimant aggrieved by the Award dated 14-10-2008 in MVOP No.130 of 208 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor (for short “the Tribunal”) whereunder the learned Chairman dismissed the petition of the claimant on the ground that claim petition which arise out of death of claimant’s father in a hit and run motor vehicle accident is not maintainable before the Tribunal.

2) The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant herein and the General Insurance Company Limited represented by its Company by name the United India Insurance Company Limited, Chittoor who was the respondent before the Tribunal is the respondent herein.

3) The factual matrix of the case is thus:

a) The claimant is the only son of A.Viswanatha Chetty and Kuppamma of Puthalapattu village, Chittoor District. They were living by doing cooli work. While so, on 25-10-2005 at about 1.30 A.M., when the parents of the claimant were returning from hospital and passing near Sanjeevarayanipalli cross on Chittoor—Tirupathi road, at that time an unknown vehicle which was passing on that way being driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came and hit his parents causing their death. On the complaint given by R.Kesavulu Naidu resident of Konappareddipalle, the police of Pakala registered a case in Cr.No.67 of 2005 under Section 304A of IPC as hit and run case. After that police filed final report treating the case as ‘undetectable’. It is the case of the claimant that accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of unknown vehicle. On these pleas claimant filed O.P. under Section 161 and 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) against General Insurance Company claiming compensation of Rs.25,000/- as provided under Section 161 of the Act for the death of his father.

b) The respondent filed counter and opposed the claim mainly contending that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim application under Section 163 of the Act. It was contended that as per the scheme formulated by the Central Government under Section 163 of the Act, the Tribunal was not appointed under the said scheme for making enquiry to settle the claim.

c) The award shows that the Tribunal has formulated a preliminary point on jurisdiction as — “Whether this Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain the application for compensation in case of hit and run motor accident cases”?and held that as per the Solatium Scheme, 1989 framed in terms of Section 163 of the Act, the Tribunal is not appointed as authority for grant of compensation in hit and run motor accident case. The Tribunal having relied upon the decisions reported in SAROJA AND OTHERS

v. GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2004 ACJ 645)and NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. RAJENDRA PRASAD BHAT AND OTHERS (2002 ACJ 1762) held that as per the scheme formulated under Section 163 of the Act the present application filed by the claimant, claiming compensation for the death of his father in a hit and run motor accident, is not maintainable before the Tribunal. Accordingly the Tribunal rejected the claim petition. Hence the present appeal.

4) Heard the arguments of Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Bhaskar Rao Bandarupalli, learned counsel for respondent.

5) Fulminating the award of the Tribunal learned counsel for appellant mainly contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition filed under section 161 of the Act. Drawing the distinction between the claim under Section 161 and 163 of the Act, learned counsel submitted that in cases of hit and run accidents, concerned claimant is entitled to claim fixed compensation of Rs.25,000/- in case of death and Rs.12,500/- in respect of grievous hurt and he can make such a claim under Section 161 of the Act following the provisions of Se