Back
Mandates Special District Squads for Hit-and-Run Cases, Cites Compensation Scheme Failures
In a sweeping judgment addressing the systemic neglect of hit-and-run motor accident cases, the has directed the State Police Chief to constitute dedicated in every district, while simultaneously calling upon the to urgently overhaul the faltering compensation framework for victims.
Justice G. Girish, presiding over a batch of three writ petitions, lamented that such cases are routinely pushed to the back burner by investigating agencies unless they attract media spotlight, leaving victims and their families to shoulder crippling financial and emotional burdens with little recourse.
Three Victims, One Common Thread of Neglect
The bench heard three petitions that laid bare the human toll of hit-and-run accidents and the subsequent investigative inertia:
concerned a 35-year-old HDFC Bank employee struck by an XUV car on the busy Angamaly-Aluva road on . Despite the stretch being lined with CCTV-equipped establishments, the driver fled and remains untraced. The victim incurred over Rs. 20 lakh in medical expenses and suffered a severe spine injury rendering him crippled.
involved a 60-year-old mason—the sole breadwinner of his family—knocked down by a car near Ethukkad market in Thiruvananthapuram district on . He succumbed to critical head injuries on , after days on ICU ventilator support. His widow approached the Court with CCTV footage of the incident on a pen drive, yet the offender remained at large.
featured a 24-year-old woman whose scooter was rammed from behind by a motorcyclist at Kadavanthra-Panampilly Nagar road in broad daylight on . She suffered multiple facial bone fractures, loss of teeth, and injuries requiring prolonged treatment. The culprit escaped despite heavy police presence for traffic control along the route.
"Cannot Rule Out Attempts to Endanger Life"
Justice Girish underscored a critical dimension often overlooked in routine accident investigations.
"It is very important to note that the possibility of at least a few of such cases being deliberate attempts to endanger the life, which may amount to , , , etc., cannot be ruled out. Thus, the failure of the investigating agency to book the culprits in such cases would entail disastrous consequences to the ."
The Court observed that except when media intervention turns such cases sensational, the police habitually relegate hit-and-run investigations to the back-burner upon encountering difficulty in tracing offenders and rogue vehicles.
The Compensation Scheme That Fails Its Beneficiaries
A substantial portion of the judgment addressed the inadequacy of the , enacted under .
The Court noted that the scheme, which provides merely Rs. 2 lakh for death and Rs. 50,000 for under , offers scant solace compared to awards typically granted by in identified-vehicle cases.
Justice Girish invoked the 's decision in Rajaseekaran.S v. Union of India [AIR 2024 SC 583], which had issued ten directions including the constitution of comprising the Secretary, the Claims Enquiry Officer, and a Deputy Superintendent of Police-level officer.
The Apex Court had also directed the to consider gradually enhancing compensation amounts annually—a direction that, the High Court noted pointedly, appears to have gone unimplemented.
"It is high time that the should wake up from slumberness and take appropriate steps, which would provide solace to hundreds of victims of accident cases who, for no fault of theirs, are deprived of the reliefs as in the case of an accident where the offending vehicle is detected."
Learning from Australia and England
In a notable comparative analysis, the Court urged Indian lawmakers to study systems operational in other jurisdictions.
The of Australia establishes the as a "" liable to compensate victims of unregistered, uninsured, and unidentified vehicles. A dedicated Nominal Defendants Fund draws from penalty deductions, contributions, and investments under .
Similarly, the of England and Wales mandates the constitution of the , a company limited by guarantee where motor insurers must take membership and contribute proportionate to their fee income. The MIB administers compensation through the and the .
The suggested that India could explore levying cess on registration fees, permit fees, license fees, and insurance premiums, or deducting amounts from fines imposed under the Motor Vehicles Act and the , to create a dedicated compensation corpus.
"The inability of the State Machinery to find out ways and means to provide compensation to the victims of motor accidents on par with the compensation which the victims of other accidents received from Claims Tribunals, would amount to nothing short of injustice and impertinence to the sufferings of a section of accident victims."
The Court's Directions
The judgment culminated in the following binding directions:
General Directives to Authorities
-
The shall constitute in every district under the direct supervision of to trace and apprehend offending vehicles and offenders in hit-and-run cases.
-
Appropriate orders shall be issued for the coordinated functioning of these squads, with the entire police force directed to alert the Special Squad of any hit-and-run incident and render full assistance. personnel must accord top priority to requests from these squads.
-
Wide public awareness shall be disseminated with contact numbers so that eyewitnesses can immediately alert the .
-
The was urged to take immediate steps to modify the existing Scheme and bring appropriate legislation implementing the 's directions in Rajaseekaran.S . The Government was further asked to explore the Australian and English models for funding adequate compensation.
Case-Specific Orders
-
: Investigation in Crime No. 1540/2025 of transferred to a team headed by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police .
-
: Investigation in Crime No. 1170/2025 of transferred to a team led by a Deputy Superintendent of Police.
-
: Investigation in Crime No. 391/2025 of transferred to a team under a Deputy Superintendent of Police.
The Registry was directed to transmit copies of the judgment to the , and the , for urgent necessary action.
What This Means Going Forward
The judgment signals a significant judicial pushback against investigative apathy in hit-and-run cases. By mandating dedicated with cyber policing integration and public engagement, the has created a structural framework that could dramatically improve detection rates.
Simultaneously, the detailed critique of the compensation scheme—and the comparative references to Australian and English models—places the on notice that the current Rs. 2 lakh death compensation is constitutionally and morally inadequate. Should the government act on the Court's suggestions for statutory funds and "" mechanisms, the landscape for hit-and-run victims across India could transform substantially.
