The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a directive to the States of Punjab and Haryana, along with the Union Territory of Chandigarh, to furnish comprehensive data regarding the processing and settlement of hit-and-run motor accident claims. The court’s order mandates the submission of detailed statistics covering the period since the implementation of the Compensation to Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022, up to September 30, 2026. This judicial intervention is aimed at ensuring transparency and efficiency in the delivery of state-funded financial relief to those impacted by road fatalities where the offending vehicle remains unidentified.

Presiding over the matter, Justice Harsh Bunger emphasized the necessity of granular data to assess the real-world efficacy of the 2022 scheme. The court directed that the authorities must clearly categorize the cases, stating, “The said data shall also indicate the number of cases which have been decided, the number of cases pending, and the status of disbursement of compensation in the decided cases.” This focus on disbursement status marks a critical effort by the judiciary to hold local administrations accountable for delays that have historically hindered victims' access to justice.

Strengthening Oversight of Compensation Claims The court’s direction is part of an ongoing appeal involving a widow whose claim petition was initially dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Sonepat. The original claim stemmed from a fatal incident in 2017, where the victim, Raghbir alias Sunil, was struck by an unidentified vehicle on GT Road. Despite the legal complexities of tracing the vehicle in such cases, the 2022 scheme is designed to bypass the traditional requirement of identifying the vehicle, provided the accident meets specific criteria. By calling for quarterly and district-level reporting, the High Court is attempting to harmonize the regional implementation of these protocols with the broader standards set by the Supreme Court.

During the proceedings, the court reviewed an additional affidavit submitted by Lakshay Pandey, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Traffic (R&D), Road Safety, for the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The affidavit was accepted into the record, signaling a proactive stance by the court in demanding accountability from law enforcement and administrative bodies. Justice Bunger’s inquiry is grounded in the mandate to monitor district-level committees, which are legally required to meet bi-monthly to review the progression of compensation claims.

Addressing Institutional Delays The legal landscape for victims of hit-and-run accidents underwent a significant shift with the introduction of the 2022 scheme, which superseded the older Solatium Scheme of 1989. Despite these legislative improvements, the judicial review underscores persistent challenges in the actual dispersal of funds to the claimants. In the Sonepat case, the State of Haryana requested additional time to reconcile the status of the appellant’s specific claim with the broader compliance reporting, a development that highlights the current backlog in administrative processing.

The High Court has underscored the importance of procedural rigor, noting that the 2022 scheme provides for “increased, time-bound financial compensation for victims or legal heirs.” The insistence on data regarding pending cases serves to identify bottlenecks in the claims enquiry process, where the claims enquiry officer is responsible for forwarding recommendations to the Claim Settlement Commissioner. By requiring this information to be placed on record by the next hearing, the court intends to ensure that the bureaucratic machinery effectively serves those it was intended to support.

Next Steps in the Judicial Review The court has listed the matter for further hearing on October 28, 2026, granting the state governments and the Chandigarh administration the necessary window to compile the requested reports. The outcome of this directive is expected to provide a clear picture of how many families are currently awaiting the benefits promised under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended by the 2019 Act.

The emphasis on “needful being done” by the next date of hearing serves as a firm reminder to the authorities that the Court is monitoring the implementation of these welfare schemes with strict scrutiny. For legal professionals and the public alike, this development signals a shift toward more robust judicial oversight of state-run victim assistance programs. As the case progresses, the court’s focus on the status of disbursement will likely serve as a benchmark for how state legal services authorities across the region comply with established mandates for swift and transparent victim support. The final resolution of the appellant’s specific case remains contingent on the upcoming status reports and the court’s assessment of the compliance data provided by the state authorities.