Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on Friday issued a slew of directions to address an issue of less number of claims made for compensation in hit and run cases made on behalf of the victims, though a scheme had been brought into force on April 1, 2022.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal has said if the police conclude that it is a case of hit and run accident, they must inform the victim or his or her legal representatives about the availability of the Scheme. The contact details such as e-mail ID and office address of the jurisdictional Claims Enquiry Officer shall be provided by the Police to the injured or the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be, it said.

"There are cases where the police, as well as the Claims Enquiry Officer, are aware of the fact that a hit and run accident has occurred. However, no efforts are made to ensure that the persons entitled to seek compensation file their claims," the bench observed.

Court noted that a Parliament reply stated that in the last five years, there were 660 deaths in hit and run cases, and there were 113 injury cases for which compensation of Rs 184.60 Lakhs was disbursed. 

"If we compare the number of hit and run road accidents reported and the number of cases registered for seeking compensation, what stares at the face is that negligible number of victims have taken advantage of the said scheme. One reason may be that the victims were not made aware of the existence of the scheme," it said.

It further recorded that under Sub-section (2) of Section 161 of Motor Vehicles Act provides that in case of death of any person resulting from hit and run motor accident, a compensation of Rs two lakhs or such higher amount as may be prescribed by the central government should be paid. In case of grievous injury, the compensation amount is Rs 50 thousand. 

"The value of money diminishes with time. We direct the central government to consider whether the compensation amounts can be gradually enhanced annually. The central government shall take an appropriate decision on this issue within eight weeks from today," the bench said.

It has thus directed the central government to consider whether time limit can be extended as one time measure for making claims.

Sub-clause (2) of clause 20 of the Solatium Scheme provided a period of limitation of 6 months for filing claims from the date of the accident, which was extendable up to 12 months. Under the Scheme framed in 2022, no specific limitation period is prescribed for submitting a claim, the court noted.

Court also considered the records published by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways of the Government of India from 2016-2022 that there were 55,942 hit and run motor accidents in 2016, which increased to 65,186 in 2017, 69,621 in 2018, and 69,621 in 2019. In years 2020, 2021 and 2022, the figures were recorded as 52,448, 57,415 and 67,378 respectively.

"When a motor accident occurs, the injured or the legal representatives of the deceased may not be aware of whether it is a hit and run accident. After a motor accident, a report is registered by the officer in charge of the jurisdictional Police Station. Clause (d) of Section 145 of the MV Act defines a hit and run accident. An accident involving a motor vehicle can be considered as a hit and run accident, provided the identity of the vehicle that caused the accident cannot be ascertained despite reasonable efforts. Obviously, reasonable efforts must be made by the Police Station which registers the accident," the bench said.

Compensation of Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022 provided for the setting up of the Standing Committee and District Level Committees. The Standing Committee is entrusted to make recommendations to the central government for the amendment of the Scheme for its better and more effective implementation.

"The Standing Committee must look into the causes of non-implementation of the Scheme and direct corrective measures to be taken to ensure that every claimant who is entitled to the benefit of the Scheme is encouraged to take benefit thereof. If the Scheme cannot be effectively implemented without making amendments, the Standing Committee must recommend amendments to the Scheme," the bench said.

Standing Committee has also been directed to make recommendations to the central government, if necessary for amendment of the scheme.

It should address the major concern that notwithstanding the availability of the scheme, very few eligible claimants are taking its benefit of the Scheme; the Standing Committee should issue elaborate directions for developing public awareness and for sensitisation of the members of the public about it, the court directed.

It has now fixed the matter, arising out of a plea filed by S Rajaseekaran for considering compliance of directions on April 22, 2024. Advocate Gaurav Agrawal appeared as Amicus Curiae in the matter.

Among other directions, the court has ordered the Standing Committee may also issue directions for the effective implementation of the Scheme. The Standing Committee shall address the major concern that notwithstanding the availability of the Scheme, very few eligible claimants are taking benefit of the Scheme; it shall issue elaborate directions for developing public awareness and for sensitisation of the members of the public about the Scheme.

The court also directed a Monitoring Committee should be constituted at every district level consisting of the Secretary of the District Legal Service Authority, the Claims Enquiry Officer of the district or, if there is more than one, the Claim Enquiry Officer nominated by the State Government, and a police officer not below the level of Deputy Superintendent of Police as may be nominated by the District Superintendent of Police. The Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority shall be the Convener of the Monitoring Committee. The Committee shall meet at least once in every two months to monitor the implementation of the Scheme in the district and the compliance with the directions, it said.

Cause Title: S Rajaseekaran vs. Union of India & Ors