Full Judgment
P. Sathasivam, J.
1. For the death of one Williams Rajakumar in road Accident that took place on 1.1.1993, the wife and his children have approached this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation resulting from hit and run motor Accident and also direct the respondent No. 3 to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the petitioners.
2. According to the petitioner No. 1, her husband Williams Rajakumar met with a road Accident and died on 1.1.1993. He was working as a road roller driver in the Highways Department at the time of his death. He was 40 years old and drawing a salary of Rs. 2,200/- per month. Her husband left the petitioner No. 1, who is none else than his wife, two female children, one male child and aged mother. With regard to the Accident on 1.1.1993, the respondent No. 4 registered a case in Crime No. 3 of 1993 in Var No. 3. The vehicle involved in the case was a Maruti van and the respondent No. 4 did not investigate the case and find out the real culprit. Though the Accident took place on 1.1.1993, petitioners were not furnished vital documents such as First 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 Clause (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 curiae, Mr. K.S. Narasimhan has brought to my notice the relevant scheme, namely, Solatium Scheme, 1989 applicable to the case of this nature. Before considering the salient features from the scheme, learned Special Government Pleader has brought to my notice the information from the Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation, Pondy Bazaar, Chennai-17 the respondent No. 4 herein, wherein it is stated that in respect of the Accident that had taken place on 1.1.1993 at about 3.55 hours near Congress Ground, Teynampet, a case was registered under Crime No. 3/TN2/98 and the same was enquired. Ultimately, the inquiry reveals that it is a case of undetected (UN) and further inquiry was d ropped. The above statement of the learned Special Government Pleader is hereby recorded.
5. In the light of the information furnished by respondent No. 4, it is clear that the vehicle in question which caused the Accident could not be traced and was not detectable, Accordingly the proper procedure for the petitioner is to avail the provisions of the Solatium Scheme, 1989. The said scheme came into force with effect from 1.7.1989. Mr. K.S. Nafasimhan highlighted the relevant provisions from the scheme.
Clause 2(b) of the scheme refers to 'Claims Inquiry 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 compensation. The, scheme also provides application form for compensation from Solatium Fund. In the light of the above referred clauses, the proper course for petitioners is to make a proper application in Form I before the Claims Inquiry Officer, i.e., Sub-divisional Officer or Tehsildar or any other officer-in-charge of the Revenue Sub-division. of Taluka not below the rank of Sub-divisional Officer or Tehsildar 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 6 months from the date of the Accident and Claims Inquiry Officer has power to condone the delay up to the period of 12 months from the date 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 Inquiry Officer. It is for the petitioners to file an application seeking compensation under the scheme in Form, giving details as required. On receipt of the claim application, the Claims Inquiry Officer, Tehsildar or any other officer authorised, after getting necessary materials from the officer concerned hold an inquiry in respect of the claim arising out of hit and run motor Accident and forward his report tothe Claims Settlement 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 Inquiry Officer, the Claims Settlement 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 Co. Ltd., enclosing details as mentioned in Clause 22. Based on the recommendation pf 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.
8. 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.