SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 3560

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
SUVIR SEHGAL, J
DAYA DEVI AND ANOTHER – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS – Respondent
CWP-1791-2025|CWP-2793-2025|CWP-2837-2025|CWP-2869-2025|CWP-2884-2025|CWP-2916-2025|CWP-2925-2025|CWP-2943-2025|CWP-2946-2025|CWP-20769-2025|CWP-21344-2025|CWP-21345-2025|CWP-21427-2025|CWP-21465-2025|CWP-21470-2025|CWP-21472-2025|CWP-21485-2025|CWP-21489-2025|CWP-21516-2025|CWP-23111-2025|CWP-23216-2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Uday Pratap Singh
For the Respondents: Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Mr. Deepak Vashisth, Mr. Aakash Singla

Victims of hit-and-run cases under the Motor Vehicles Act can claim compensation under the Haryana Victim Compensation Scheme, 2020, as the scheme does not exclude such cases.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 357-A (4) - Haryana Victim Compensation Scheme, 2020 - Petitioners sought compensation for death resulting from a hit-and-run accident not covered under MACT as per the Scheme. Petitioner’s claim for compensation under the Scheme was rejected by authorities, leading to the writ petitions. (Paras 2-4)

(B) Jurisdictional scope - It was adjudicated that victims of hit-and-run cases under the M.V. Act can claim compensation under the Scheme of 2020, which does not exclude such cases. The Court set aside earlier orders dismissing claims under the Scheme for being contrary to statutory provision. (Paras 5-7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners are the widow and son of the deceased who died in an accident on 19.05.2024, claiming compensation under the legal services authority for the untraceable vehicle's driver. The authorities dismissed the applications on grounds of existing coverage under the M.V. Act.

Findings of Court:
The previous orders were overturned since the petitioners had not appropriately pursued claims under MACT.

Issues: Determination of whether hit-and-run victims can reclaim under the victim compensation scheme, despite provisions of the M.V. Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the scheme encompasses victims falling under untraceable conditions, and compensation claims should be assessed on these grounds rather than reverting solely to MACT provisions.

Result: Writ petitions allowed; matter remitted to the DLSA for proper evaluation of claims as per law.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek compensation for a death in a hit-and-run accident. (Para 1 , 2)

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL

1. This order shall dispose of the above noted twenty one writ petitions as they involve common questions of law and fact. For the sake of convenience, factual position is being noticed from CWP-1791-2025.

2. Assailing orders dated 29.11.2023 and 26.09.2024, Annexures P-1 and P-2, respectively, petitioners have approached this Court for quashing KAMAL SHARMA

2025.08.21 11:13 them as well as for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Legal Services Authority to determine compensation payable as per Clause 5 (3) of Haryana Victim Compensation Scheme, 2020 (for short “the Scheme of

2020”).

3. Petitioners are the widow and son of Ved Parkash, who lost his life in an accident with an unidentified vehicle on 19.05.2024. An FIR No.65 was lodged on the same day under Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC at Police Station Titram, Kaithal. The driver of the offending vehicle could not be found and an untraced report was filed by the police before the Judicial Magistrate. Claiming compensation under the Scheme of 2020, legal heirs of the deceased filed an application before the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), Kaithal, which was rejected vide impugned order, Annexure P-1, and appeal filed by them was declined by the Haryana State Legal Services Authority (HSLSA) vide impugned order, Annexure P-2. Both the authorities have dismissed the application on the ground that under Clause 5 (9) of the Scheme of 2020, cases which are covered by the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 (for short “M.V. Act”) or where the compensation is to be awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short “the MACT”), would not fall within the ambit of the scheme. Despite notice and grant of opportunities, respondents have not filed any response.

4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their submissions, besides examining the paper-book.

5. The question as to whether victims of a hit and run case under M.V. Act can claim compensation under the Scheme of 2020 has been adjudicated KAMAL SHARMA

2025.08.21 11:13 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in “ Savita and others Versus State of Haryana and others ” , 2 025 (1) PLR 17 . Examining the provisions of the various statutes, this Court held that the Scheme of 2020 has been notified under Section 357-A (4) of CrPC, which stipulates the grant of compensation to the victims where the offender is untraceable or cannot be identified and no trial takes place. Victim or his/her dependents are then entitled to make an application to the District or State Legal Services Authority for award of compensation under the Scheme of 2020. This Court observed that Clause 5 (9) of the Scheme of 2020 excludes cases where compensation is to be awarded by the MACT under M.V. Act and no other category of cases has been ousted from the scope of the scheme. Setting aside the orders passed by the HSLSA, this Court remitted the matter for decision afresh in accordance with law as per the applicable scheme. This judgment has been followed by this Court in CWP-2790-2025 titled as “Sahil Versus State of Haryana and others”, decided on 03.02.2025; CWP-2860-2025 titled as “Neelam Versus State of Haryana and others”, decided on 03.02.2025 and CWP-2791-2025 titled as “Savitri Versus State of Haryana and others, decided on 05.02.2025. 6. Counsel for the respondents has not been able to show that the petitioners have approached MACT and that petitioners have filed a petition claiming compensation under Sections 163-A or 166 or any other provision of M.V. Act on account of the death of the breadwinner of the family. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the matter is squarely covered with the judgment in Savita’s case (supra).

KAMAL SHARMA

2025.08.21 11:13

7. As a result, impugned orders, Annexures P-1 and P-2, are set aside. Matter has to be remitted to the DLSA concerned to take a decision afresh.

8. All

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top