Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
V.K. BHASI S/O KUTTAPPAN – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 16367 of 2022
Decided On : 28-10-2022
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 161 to 163, (1) - Accident - Compensation - Petitioner is a victim of ‘hit and run’ Petitioner approached authorities for compensation under Solatium Scheme, 1989 and there was no response - A reading of Sections 161 to 163 of the Act, 1988 and Solatium Scheme, 1989, will show that it is a complete code and a time limit is also prescribed for paying compensation in ‘hit and run’ motor accident cases.
Findings of the Court:
It is clear that Revenue Divisional Officer of jurisdiction where accident happened, is Claims Enquiry Officer and District Collector of that jurisdiction is Claims Settlement Commissioner - Government Pleader submitted that all Revenue Divisional Officers and all District Collectors are authorised to consider compensation claim as per Solatium Scheme, 1989 - Only objection raised by Government Pleader is that petitioner has not submitted application in Form I - Even then it is submitted that District Collector has taken necessary steps and directed Revenue Divisional Officer concerned to get application in correct form - If that is case, petitioner can submit application before 3rd respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi in Form-I along with duly filled discharge receipt in Form II and undertaking in Form V and there can be a direction to 3rd respondent to forward same after conducting enquiry as per Scheme to 2nd respondent and there can be a direction to 2nd respondent to take necessary action as per Scheme to redress grievance of petitioner.
Result: Petition disposed of.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key legal points:
The scheme for compensation in hit and run motor accident cases is a comprehensive legal framework established under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically Sections 161 to 163, along with the Solatium Scheme, 1989 (!) (!) .
The scheme designates the Revenue Divisional Officer as the Claims Enquiry Officer and the District Collector as the Claims Settlement Commissioner, both of whom are authorized to consider and process claims for compensation (!) (!) .
The procedure for claiming compensation involves submitting an application in a prescribed Form I, along with a discharge receipt in Form II and an undertaking in Form V, to the Claims Enquiry Officer at the relevant jurisdiction (!) (!) .
The Claims Enquiry Officer is responsible for obtaining necessary reports such as FIR, inquest, post-mortem, or injury certificates, and conducting an enquiry to determine rightful claimants and prepare a report within a specified timeframe (!) (!) (!) .
The Claims Enquiry Officer must submit a report in a prescribed form, which is then reviewed and sanctioned by the Claims Settlement Commissioner within a set period, typically within fifteen days of receiving the report (!) (!) .
Once sanctioned, the Claims Settlement Commissioner issues a formal order of compensation, which is communicated to all relevant authorities, including the insurance company (!) .
The legal framework prescribes a strict timeline for the entire process, emphasizing the importance of timely submission, enquiry, and payment of compensation in hit and run cases (!) (!) .
If the victim has not submitted the application in the prescribed form, authorities are authorized to direct the claimant to do so, and the process can be initiated upon submission of the correct documentation (!) (!) .
In the case discussed, the petitioner is entitled to submit a proper application in the prescribed form within a specified period, after which the authorities are required to conduct an enquiry and process the claim expeditiously (!) (!) .
The legal provisions and scheme collectively aim to ensure that victims of hit and run accidents receive timely compensation, and the authorities are mandated to facilitate this process efficiently (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance with specific legal interpretations.
JUDGMENT :
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
1. A latest study on the major causes of road accidents shows that out of the total cases of 4,03,116 road accidents during the year 2020-21, 59.7% of the road accidents has occurred in rural areas (2,40,660) and 40.3% has occurred in urban areas (1,62,456). Among this, there are several hit and run accidents. ‘Hit and run motor accident’ means an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles the identity whereof cannot be ascertained in spite of reasonable efforts for the purpose. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act 1988’) provides compensation for hit and run motor accidents. Sections 161 to 163 are the relevant provisions which deals with the compensation payable for hit and run accident cases. Based on Section 163(1), Solatium Scheme of 1989 was framed by the Central Government. I think the general public is not aware about this scheme and they are ignorant about the competent authority to whom application is to be submitted for getting compensation in ‘hit and run’ cases. Therefore, a detailed discussion about Sections 161 to 163 of the Act, 1988 and the Solatium Scheme, 1989 is necessary.
2. The brief facts of the present case can be narrated first. The petitioner is a victim of ‘hit and run’. On 2.11.2021 at 7 pm, the petitioner was riding a motor cycle/scooter (Honda Activa bearing No. KL-41Q-5627) and was returning from work. On his way from Edappally, when the petitioner reached the flyover located just after the Apollo Junction, Kalamassery a car hit the rear side of his scooter and left without stopping. The petitioner fell down on that impact and sustained serious injuries. Exts.P1 to P4 are the medical records. The petitioner submitted a complaint before the Kalamassery Police station as evident by Exts.P5 and P6. Even though, the case was not registered originally, subsequently, Crime No. 1697/2021 was registered as evident by Ext.P7. After investigation, the Police informed the petitioner that they have not been able to identify the vehicle. Accordingly, Ext.P8 was sent by the Police informing that the case is undetectable.
3. The petitioner approached the authorities for getting compensation under the Solatium Scheme, 1989 and there was no response. Hence, this writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to take steps to appoint Claim Enquiry Officers in every Taluk in Kerala for the purpose of settling claims under Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
(ii) Issue a Writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to grant compensation to the petitioner.
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext P10 representation of the petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
(iv) Issue any other writ, direction or order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.” (SIC)
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Jimmy George, the learned Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition and submitted that the respondents are not taking steps for disbursing the compensation amount and no claims enquiry officer is appointed as per the Scheme.
6. The Government Pleader, after getting instructions, submitted that the 2nd respondent, The District Collector received Ext.P10 representation for taking necessary steps to appoint Claims Enquiry Officer in the Taluk for ‘Hit and Run cases’ and to grant him compensation. The Government Pleader submitted that the law governing the issue is Solatium Scheme, 1989 and it designates Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) as the Claims Enquiry Officer and the District Collector as the Claims Settlement Officer. The Government Pleader further submitted that the petitioner has not submitted an application seeking compensation as laid down in Form I under the Solatium Scheme, 1989. Hence, it is submitted that the District C
SupremeToday
As per Section 163 of the Act, 1988, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make a scheme specifying, the manner in which the scheme shall be administered by the General....
Hit and Run motor accidents – Value of money diminishes with time – Central Government must consider whether compensation amounts can be gradually enhanced annually.
The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain claims for fixed compensation under Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, despite the Solatium Scheme 1989.
Point of law: Scheme is a social welfare scheme requiring liberal construction and application of benefit to needy people.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is not required to plead or establish the wrongful act, neglect, or default of the ....
The Claims Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain claims by vehicle owners under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act for personal accident coverage, as they do not qualify as third parties.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
