In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 07/08/2002
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
Writ Petition No.15101 of 1995
1.Tmt. Saroja
2.Selvi Christina Rajakumari (minor)
3.Selvan Christopher Sundaram (minor)
4.Selvi Hebsi Beaula (minor)
(Petitioners 2 to 4 are rep. By
their mother & natural guardian
1st petitioner.) .. Petitioners
vs.
1.General Insurance Corporation
of India, Crop Insurance Cell,
L.B. Road, Adyar, Madras 20.
2.Union of India rep. By the
Secretary to Government,
Finance Department,
North Block, New Delhi 11.
3.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By
the Secretary, Home Department,
Fort St. George, Madras 9.
4.The Inspector of Police
Traffic Investigation (South)
E-4, Pondy Bazzar, Madras 17.
5.Tmt. Christina Timothy
6.Sundaram
(R.5 & 6 given up).
7.The Divisional Engineer
National Highway, Madras 20. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of writ of mandamus as stated therein.
For petitioners : Mr. P. Antony Xavier
For respondents : Mrs. Reeta Chandrasekaran
for M/s. Aiyar & Dolia forR.1&2
Mr.S. Kandaswamy,
Special Govt., Pleader forR.3&4
Mr. K.S. Narasimhan
Amicus Curie
:ORDER
For the death of one Williams Rajakumar in a road accident
that took place on 01.01.1993, wife and his children have approached this
Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to pay a sum
of Rs.25,000/- towards compens ting from hit and run motor accident and also
direct the third respondent to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakhs to the
petitioners.
2. According to the first petitioner, her husband Williams
Rajakumar met with a road accident and died on 01.01.1993. He was working as
a Road Roller Driver in Highways Department at the time of his death. He was
40 years old and drawing a Rs.2,200/- per month. Her husband left the first
petitioner, who is none else than his wife, two female children, one male
child and aged mother. With regard to the accident on 01.01.1993, the 4th
respondent registered a case in Crime No.3/93 in VAR No .3. The vehicle
involved in the case was a Maruthi van and the fourth respondent did not
investigate the case and find out the real culprit. Though the accident took
place on 01.01.1993, the petitioners were not furnished vital documents, such
as Firs t Information Report, Post-mortem certificate and Death certificate.
In the absence of those particulars, they could not file an application for
compensation under Section 110-A of the Old Motor Vehicles Act. Now, she has
been advised that as per Claus e (a) of Sub-section (3) of Section 161 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in respect of a death of a person resulting from hit
and run motor accident, a fixed sum of Rs.25,000/- shall be paid as
compensation, hence the present writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
the respondents.
4. On direction by this Court, Mr. K.S. Narasimhan,
appeared and assisted the Court as Amicus Curie. Mr. K.S. Narasimhan has
brought to my notice the relevant Scheme, namely, Solatium Scheme, 1989
applicable to the case of this nature. Bef ring the salient features from the
Scheme, the learned Special Government Pleader has brought to my notice an
information from the Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation, Pondy Bazzar,
Chennai 17 – 4th respondent herein, wherein it is stated that in respect of
the accident that had taken place on 01.01.1993 at about 03.55 hours near
Congress Ground, Teynampet, a case was registered under Crime No.3/TN2/98 and
the same was enquired. Ultimately, the enquiry reveals that it is a case of
undetected (UN ) and further enquiry was dropped. The above statement of the
learned Special Government Pleader is hereby recorded.
5. In the light of the information furnished by the fourth
respondent, it is clear that the vehicle in question which caused the accident
could not be traced and detectable, accordingly the proper procedure for the
petitioners is to avail ons of the Solatium Scheme, 1989. The said Scheme
came into force with effect from 01.07.1989. Mr. K.S. Narasimhan,
highlighted the relevant provisions from the Scheme.
Clause 2 (b) of the Scheme refers “Claims Enquiry Officer”.
Clause 2 ( c ) refers to “Claims Settlement Commissioner.”
Among other clauses, we are concerned with Clause 19, which speaks about
Nomination of insurance company; Clause 20 refers Procedure for making the
claim application; Clause 22 relates to sanctioning of claims and Clause 23
refers to Payment of compensat ion. The Scheme also provides application form
for compensation from Solatium Fund. In the light of the above referred
Clauses, the proper course for the petitioners is to make a proper application
in Form I before the Claims Enquiry Officer, i.e., Spe cial Divisional Officer
or Tahsildar or any other Officer in charge of the Revenue Special Division of
a Taluk not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer or Tahsildar as specified
by the State Government.
6. Though as per Sub-clause (2) of Clause 20 an application
under Clause (1) shall be made within a period of six months from the date of
the accident and the Claims Enquiry Officer has power to condone the delay
upto the period of 12 months ate of accident, in view of the peculiar
circumstance of the case and the grievance expressed by the petitioners, this
Court taking note of all the above aspects grants two weeks time from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order to the petitioners to file a proper
application in the prescribed form before the Claims Enquiry Officer. It is
for the petitioners to file an application seeking compensation under the
Scheme in Form-I, giving details as required. On receipt of the claim
application, the Claims Enquiry Officer – Tahsildar or any other Officer
authorised, after getting necessary materials from the officer concerned hold
an enquiry in respect of the claim arising out of hit and run motor accident
and forward his report to the Claims Settle ment Commissioner, who is the
District Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner / Collector or any other officer in
charge of a revenue District in a State appointed by the State Government. On
receipt of the report of the Claims Enquiry Officer, the Claims Set tlement
Commissioner shall pass an order in terms of Clause 22 and communicate the
sanction order if any to the nominated officer of the Insurance Company, here
in our case United India Insurance Company enclosing details as mentioned in
Clause 22. Base d on the recommendation of the Claims Settlement
Commissioner, the nominated officer of the Insurance Company shall sanction
and pay the amount as recommended.
7. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed
of. No costs.
This Court records its appreciation for the efforts taken by
Mr. K.S. Narasimhan in placing the
relevant statutory provisions for the disposal of the above case.
Index:Yes
Internet:Yes
kh
07.08.2002
To
1.The General Insurance Corporation
of India, Crop Insurance Cell,
L.B. Road, Adyar, Madras 20.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Union of India
Finance Department,
North Block, New Delhi 11.
3.The Secretary,
State of Tamil Nadu
Home Department,
Fort St. George, Madras 9.
4.The Inspector of Police
Traffic Investigation (South)
E-4, Pondy Bazzar, Madras 17.
5.The Divisional Engineer
National Highway, Madras 20.
P. Sathasivam,J.,
Order in
W.P.No.15101 of 1995