Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Telangana) 407

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P.NAVEEN RAO, G.RADHA RANI, JJ.
Smt Simhadri Bharathi, W/o Late S. Bapuji - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Telangana, rep.by its Prl. Secretary for Home, Secretariat, Hyderabad, T.S., and others. - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NOs.4278, 4960 of 2019, 23299, 23387, 24164 and 24726 OF 2022 W.P.No.4278 of 2019
Decided On : 29-07-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri K.Venkat Reddy
For the Respondent: Govt. Pleader for Home; Sri J.Anil Kumar

Point of law: Scheme is a social welfare scheme requiring liberal construction and application of benefit to needy people.

Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 357-A - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Claim compensation - Procedure for grant of Compensation - Application of the Scheme - State Legal Services Authority - Procedure for grant of compensation - Whether clause-7(6) denies the petitioners to claim compensation under the Scheme if deaths occurred in motor accidents and whether resort to clause-6(c) can be made by claimants to seek compensation under the scheme - State Legal Services Authority is directed to issue suitable instructions to District Legal Services Authorities to process the claims and take appropriate decision in all the cases where the death or injuries are caused in a motor accident and if the driver and/or owner of the crime vehicle was undetected and the vehicle involved in the accident was not identified(Para 18).
Finding of the court: Court are inclined to give benefit of doubt in favour of petitioners, inasmuch as it is consistent view of Legal Services Authority and also argued by learned Counsel representing the Legal Services Authority that if a death or injury is caused on account of motor accident, claimant has to go before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal under the Act, 1988 and not entitled to make application under Scheme. Petitioners were under the bona fide impression that they would be given sufficient relief under the Act, 1988, but to their dismay when charge sheets are filed, the Police have stated in the charge sheets as the accused ‘undetected’. Further, on true construction of clauses-6(c) and 7(6), court have held herein above that clause-6(c) carves out exception to clause-7(6), when the motor vehicle is not traced and accused is not detected, no remedy is available under the Act, 1988 and the claimants have to take recourse to the Scheme.
Results: Writ Petitions allowed.

ORDER :

P.Naveen Rao, J.

Heard learned counsel Sri K.Venkat Reddy for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Home for respondents 1 and 2, and learned standing counsel Sri J.Anil Kumar representing State Legal Services Authority for respondent no.3.

2. In all these Writ Petitions, accused who caused motor vehicle accidents as well as vehicles involved in the accidents, resulting in death of family members of claimants, were not traced. While registering the crimes as well as filing charge sheets, the Police have clearly indicated that the accused are undetected. Claiming that since accused were not detected and insurance companies are not identified, the family members of the victims cannot file cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, Act, 1988) to claim compensation for the loss caused, these writ petitions are instituted praying to grant compensation under Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’) and ‘the Telangana Victim Compensation Scheme’ (Scheme) formulated and notified by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.9 Law (LA, LA&J-Home- Courts.B) Department, dated 07.03.2015. They are aggrieved by rejection of their claim by the Legal Services Authority.

3. In pursuant to the introduction of Section 357-A of Cr.P.C., as amended in the year 2008, every State Government is required to prepare a Scheme for providing funds to pay compensation to the victims of crime or their dependents / family members, who have suffered loss and injury as a result of crime leading to death or grave injury and who require rehabilitation. In coordination with the Central Government, 2015 Scheme is formulated by the State Government.

4. Learned counsel representing the petitioners submits that clause-6 of the Scheme deals with the eligibility for compensation under the Scheme and the claim made by the petitioners is covered by sub-clause (c) and, therefore, they are entitled to make claim for payment of compensation by the State Government without taking recourse to remedy under the Motor Vehicles Act and denial by the State Legal Services Authority is illegal.

5. Clause-7 of the Scheme provides procedure for grant of compensation. By referring to clause-7(6) of the Scheme, learned counsel Sri J.Anil Kumar representing State Legal Services Authority submits that as these cases are falling under the Act, 1988, the claimants ought to have filed appropriate cases before the competent Court under the Act, 1988 claiming compensation and without taking recourse to the provisions of the Act, 1988, straightaway these writ petitions are instituted. He would submit that in view of the terms of the Scheme, the decision made by the Legal Services Authority rejecting claim of petitioners to pay compensation is legal and in accordance with the Scheme. These writ petitions are not maintainable.

6. There is no dispute about the formulation of the Scheme and creating victim compensation fund. The only issue for consideration is whether clause-7(6) denies the petitioners to claim compensation under the Scheme if the deaths occurred in motor accidents and whether resort to clause-6(c) can be made by claimants to seek compensation under the scheme.

7. Before dealing with the scope of clauses - 6(c) and 7(6), it is appropriate to notice that though under the Act, 1988, the victim or the family member of the victim can make claim for compensation by filing a case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, but to avail the remedy under the Act, 1988 the accused must be identified and the vehicle involved in the accident also must be identified. In all these cases, neither accused was identified nor the vehicle involved in the accident was traced. Without the accused being identified and vehicle being traced, neither the insurance company nor the owner of the crime vehicle can be arrayed as respondent to set up a claim and in the absence of crime vehicle driver and owner and/or the insurance company, compensation cannot be a