Deepak Gupta, J.
1. This appeal by the insurance company is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Solan, in M.A.C. Petition No. 22-S/2 of 1995, decided on 12.1.1996.
2. The claim petition under Section 161 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the respondents was filed with regard to the death of one Roman Singh who is alleged to have been hit by some truck on 20.4.1991 at about 7 p.m. in Solan Bazar near Bhagwati Steel Industries. No particulars of the truck, driver, owner and insurance company were given. The insurance company specifically took up a plea that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to try such claim petition. The Claims Tribunal has held that since it is the duly constituted Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, therefore, it had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the case.
3. Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act is as follows:
161. Special provisions as to compensation in case of hit and run motor accident.--(1) For the purposes of this section, Section 162 and Section 163--
(a) 'grievous hurt' shall have the same meaning as in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860);
(b) 'hit and run motor accident' means an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles the identity whereof cannot be ascertained in spite of reasonable efforts for the purpose;
(c) 'scheme' means the scheme framed under Section 163.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (57 of 1972) or any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having the force of law, the General Insurance Corporation of India formed under Section 9 of the said Act and the insurance companies for the time being carrying on general insurance business in India shall provide for paying in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the scheme, compensation in respect of the death of, or grievous hurt to, persons resulting from hit and run motor accidents.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the scheme, there shall be paid as compensation--
(a) in respect of the death of any person resulting from a hit and run motor accident, a fixed sum of twenty-five thousand rupees;
(b) in respect of grievous hurt to any person resulting from a hit and run motor accident, a fixed sum of twelve thousand and five hundred rupees;
(4) The provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 166 shall apply for the purpose of making applications for compensation under this section as they apply for the purpose of making applications for compensation referred to in that Sub-section.
4. The Tribunals are constituted under Chapter 12 of the Act. Section 165(1) and explanation thereto which is relevant for the decision of this case is as follows:
165. Claims Tribunals.--(1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both.
Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the expression 'claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles' includes claims for compensation under Section 140 and Section 163-A.
5. Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 has jurisdiction only to entertain the claim petitions filed under Section 166 of the Act. By way of the explanation added thereto the petitions under Sections 140 and 163-A are treated to be claims for compensation and therefore the M.A.C.T. has jurisdiction to decide these claim petitions also. I would hasten to add that under Section 166(4) of the Act the Claims Tribunal shall also treat any report of an accident forwarded to it under Sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under the Act. These are the only applications which can be treated as claims for compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide application under Section 161 of the Act.
6. In fact, a perusal of Section 161 of the Act clearly shows that it relates to hit and run cases. Section 163 of the Act provides that the Central Government may by notification in the official gazette, make a scheme specifying the manner in which the scheme shall be administered by the General Insurance Corporation. Section 163 reads as follows:
163. Scheme for payment of compensation in case of hit and run motor accidents.--(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make a scheme specifying, the manner in which the scheme shall be administered by the General Insurance Corporation, the form, manner and the time within which applications for compensation may be made, the officers or authorities to whom such applications may be made, the procedure to be followed by such officers or authorities for considering and passing orders on such applications, and all other matters connected with, or incidental to, the administration of the scheme and the payment of compensation.
(2) A scheme made under Sub-section (1) may provide that--
(a) a contravention of any provision thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment for such term as may be specified but in no case exceeding three months, or with fine which may extend to such amount as may be specified but in no case exceeding five hundred rupees or with both;
(b) the powers, functions or duties conferred or imposed on any officer or authority by such scheme may be delegated with the prior approval in writing of the Central Government, by such officer or authority to any other officer or authority;
(c) any provision of such scheme may operate with retrospective effect from a date not earlier than the date of establishment of the Solatium Fund under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939) as it stood immediately before the commencement of this Act:
Provided that no such retrospective effect shall be given so as to prejudicially affect the interests of any person who may be governed by such provision.
7. The Central Government has framed a scheme known as the 'Solatium Scheme, 1989' (hereinafter for short 'the scheme'). Clauses 2(b) and 2(c) of the scheme read as follows:
2(b) 'Claims Enquiry Officer' means the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsildar, or any other officer-in-charge of the revenue sub-division of a taluka in each revenue district of a State or such other officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer or a Tehsildar, as may be specified by the State Government.
(c) 'Claims Settlement Commissioner' means the District Magistrate, the Deputy Commissioner, the Collector or any other officer-in-charge of a revenue district in a State appointed as such by a State Government.
8. Clause 21 of the scheme provides for the procedure to be followed by the Claims Enquiry Officer. This section reads as follows:
21. Procedure to be followed by the Claims Enquiry Officer.--(1) On receipt of claims application, the Claims Enquiry Officer shall immediately obtain a copy of the F.I.R., inquest report, post-mortem report or certificate of injury, as the case may be, from the concerned authorities and hold enquiry in respect of claims arising out of hit and run motor accidents.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Claims Enquiry Officer--
(a) to decide as to who are the rightful claimants, where there are more than one claimants;
(b) to submit, as early as possible, and in any case within a period of one month from the date of receipt of application a report in Form III along with duly discharged receipt in Form II and the undertaking in Form V along with his own recommendation.
(3) Where the Claims Settlement Commissioner has returned any report to the Claims Enquiry Officer for further enquiry under Sub-clause (2) of Clause 22, the Claims Enquiry Officer shall make such additional enquiries as may be necessary and re-submit the report to the Claims Settlement Commissioner within 15 days for final order.
9. On receipt of the report of the Claims Enquiry Officer, the Settlement Commissioner has to sanction the claim in terms of Clause 22, which reads as follows:
22. Sanctioning of Claims.--(1) On receipt of report of the Claims Enquiry Officer, the Claims Settlement Commissioner shall sanction the claim, as far as possible, within a period not exceeding fifteen days from the date of receipt of such report and communicate the sanction order in Form IV along with duly discharged receipt in Form II and the undertaking in Form V to the nominated officer of the insurance company, with a copy to the following:
(a) the Claims Enquiry Officer;
(b) the claimant;
(c) the concerned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal;
(d) the concerned Transport Commissioner;
(e) the General Insurance Corporation headquarters.
(2) Where the Claims Settlement Commissioner has any doubt in respect of the report submitted by the Claims Enquiry Officer, he shall return the report to the Claims Enquiry Officer for further enquiry, indicating the specific points on which the enquiry is to be made.
10. The payment is to be made to the legal heirs as determined by the Claims Officer under Clause 23.
11. The entire reading of the scheme shows that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim under Section 161 of the Act. It is only the authorities so empowered under the scheme framed by the Central Government under Section 163 of the Act who are entitled to inquire into and decide such claims. Therefore, the present appeal have to be allowed by holding that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain or decide a petition under Section 161 of the Act.
12. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, the learned Counsel next contended that at the time when the accident took place in the year 1991 as per the provisions of the Act only a sum of Rs. 8,500 was payable in case of death in hit and run cases. He also submits that the amendment raising the amount to Rs. 25,000 which was made in the year 1994 cannot be given retrospective effect.
13. On the other hand, Mr. Praneet Gupta, learned Counsel submits that this is a beneficial piece of legislation and should be given retrospective effect.
14. A Division Bench of this Court in Kashmiri Lal v. Doaba Roadways, 1998 ACJ 1314 (HP), following the law laid down by Apex Court in Padma Srinivasan v. Premier Insurance Co. Ltd., 1982 ACJ 191 (SC) Ramesh Singh v. Cinta Devi, : [1996]2SCR1036 and M.K. Kunhimohammed v. P.A. Ahmedkutty, 1987 ACJ 872 (SC), held that the provisions amending Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 cannot be applied retrospectively. This Court is bound by the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, it is held that the claimants were only entitled to Rs. 8,500 and not Rs. 25,000 since at the time of the accident only a sum of Rs. 8,500 were payable.
15. However, in view of the special circumstances of this case, this Court expects that insurance company may not recover the amount of Rs. 25,000 and the full share of the minors should be paid to them. This is a small amount for the insurance company and it is the earnest hope of this Court that the insurance company is satisfied by the law laid down in this judgment and it does not take steps to recover the amount already deposited. The amount in excess of Rs. 8,500 may be paid by the insurance company to the claimants as a gratuitous payment.
16. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.