Supreme Court Directs Enhanced Implementation of Hit and Run Compensation Scheme: S. Rajaseekaran vs. Union of India (2024) INSC 37 (12 January 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 12 January 2024
Citation: (2024) INSC 37
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J. and Pankaj Mithal, J.
Can victims of hit-and-run accidents effectively access the compensation they are entitled to? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical issue, expressing concerns about the poor implementation of the Compensation of Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022. The Court has issued a series of directions to ensure that the scheme’s benefits reach those who need them most. This judgment highlights the need for better public awareness, more proactive police involvement, and a review of the compensation amounts provided to victims of hit-and-run accidents.

Case Background

The case originated as a Writ Petition (C) No. 295 of 2012, where the petitioner, S. Rajaseekaran, raised concerns regarding the implementation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) concerning compensation for hit-and-run accidents. The court noted that despite the existence of the Compensation of Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022, a very small number of victims were actually receiving compensation. This was evident from the annual reports of the General Insurance Council and the answers provided in the Lok Sabha. The court also noted the high number of hit-and-run cases reported annually, highlighting the gap between the number of accidents and the number of claims settled.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court took cognizance of the matter due to concerns raised about the poor implementation of the hit-and-run compensation scheme. The court observed that despite the existence of the scheme, very few victims were receiving compensation. The court reviewed the annual reports of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, the General Insurance Council, and the submissions made by the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned counsel. The court noted that the Standing Committee, responsible for overseeing the scheme, had not taken adequate steps to ensure its effective implementation.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision governing compensation in hit-and-run cases is Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This section mandates that the Central Government shall provide compensation for death or grievous hurt resulting from hit-and-run accidents. Specifically, Section 161(2) states that:

“(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the Scheme made under sub-section (3), 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 two lakh rupees or such higher amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government;
(b) in respect of grievous hurt to any person resulting from a hit and run motor accident, a fixed sum of fifty thousand rupees or such higher amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government.”

Section 161(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the Central Government to create a scheme for administering the compensation. In accordance with this, the Compensation of Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022, was introduced, superseding the Solatium Scheme, 1989. The Scheme outlines the procedures for applying for compensation, the roles of various officers, and the responsibilities of the General Insurance Council.

The Scheme establishes a Standing Committee at the central level and District Level Committees to oversee its implementation. The Standing Committee is responsible for reviewing the scheme’s functioning and recommending amendments. District Level Committees monitor the scheme’s progress at the local level and ensure public awareness.

Arguments

The learned Amicus Curiae and the learned counsel made the following submissions:

• Lack of Awareness: Many victims of hit-and-run accidents are not aware of the existence of the compensation scheme. This lack of awareness is a major reason for the low number of claims being filed.

• Police Inaction: Police often do not inform victims about the scheme or assist them in filing claims. The police should proactively inform victims or their families about the availability of compensation.

• Procedural Issues: The procedure for filing claims is not always clear or accessible to the victims. The process needs to be simplified and streamlined.

• Time Limit under the Solatium Scheme: The previous Solatium Scheme had a limitation period of 6 months for filing claims, extendable up to 12 months. This limitation period should be done away with, and those who were entitled to compensation under the Solatium Scheme should be allowed to apply.

• Inadequate Compensation: The current compensation amounts (Rs. 2 lakhs for death and Rs. 50,000 for grievous hurt) are insufficient and need to be enhanced.

The core of the arguments centered on the poor implementation of the scheme, despite its existence. The submissions highlighted the need for proactive measures to ensure that victims are aware of their rights and are able to access the compensation they are entitled to. The arguments also pointed out the need for a review of the compensation amounts and the procedural aspects of the scheme.

The innovativeness of the argument lies in highlighting the practical difficulties faced by victims in accessing the scheme, despite its existence. The arguments went beyond the legal provisions to address the ground realities and the systemic issues that hinder the effective implementation of the scheme.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in a numbered list. However, the core issues that the court addressed were:

• How to ensure the effective implementation of the Compensation of Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022.
• What measures should be taken to create public awareness about the Scheme.
• Whether the police should be more proactive in informing victims about the Scheme.
• Whether the time limit under the Solatium Scheme should be extended.
• Whether the compensation amounts are adequate and need to be enhanced.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The court considered the following authorities:

• Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: This section provides for compensation in hit-and-run cases. The court examined the provisions of this section to understand the legislative intent behind the compensation scheme.
• Compensation of Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022: The court analyzed this scheme to assess its effectiveness and identify areas for improvement.
• Solatium Scheme, 1989: The court referred to the previous scheme to understand the historical context and the changes brought about by the new scheme.
• Section 64(C) of the Insurance Act, 1938: The court referred to this section to understand the constitution of the General Insurance Council.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court issued a series of directions aimed at improving the implementation of the hit-and-run compensation scheme. The court’s judgment is based on the analysis of the arguments and the legal framework.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: The Court relied on this provision to emphasize the legal obligation of the Central Government to provide compensation in hit-and-run cases. The court used this section as the foundation for its directions, ensuring that the scheme operates as intended by the legislature.
• Compensation of Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022: The Court analyzed this scheme and identified several areas where it was not being implemented effectively. This analysis formed the basis for the court’s directions to the Standing Committee and other authorities.
• Solatium Scheme, 1989: The Court considered the previous scheme to address the issue of victims who may have been eligible under the old scheme but were unable to apply due to the time limit. This consideration led to the direction for the Central Government to consider extending the time limit as a one-time measure.
• Section 64(C) of the Insurance Act, 1938: The Court referred to this section to understand the role and responsibilities of the General Insurance Council in the implementation of the scheme.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to ensure that the benefits of the hit-and-run compensation scheme reach the intended beneficiaries. The Court was concerned about the low number of claims being settled despite a high number of hit-and-run accidents. The Court emphasized the need for proactive measures by the authorities to create awareness and assist victims in filing claims.

The court also considered the practical difficulties faced by victims, such as lack of awareness and procedural hurdles. The court’s reasoning was based on both legal provisions and the factual context of the scheme’s poor implementation.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them in favor of a more proactive approach to ensure that the scheme’s benefits reach the intended beneficiaries. The court emphasized that the scheme’s purpose should not be defeated by procedural or systemic hurdles.

The court’s decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the legal provisions, the factual context, and the practical difficulties faced by victims. The court sought to strike a balance between legal requirements and the need for social justice.

The court’s decision was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the need for immediate and concrete steps to improve the scheme’s implementation.

The court’s reasoning is encapsulated in the following quotes from the judgment:

“One reason may be that the victims were not made aware of the existence of the Scheme. This aspect ought to have been considered by the Standing Committee. However, that has not been done.”

“If the Police conclude that it is a case of hit and run accident, the Police must inform the victim or the legal representatives of the victim, as the case may be, about the availability of the Scheme.”

“The value of money diminishes with time. We direct the Central Government to consider whether the compensation amounts can be gradually enhanced annually.”

Key Takeaways

• Public Awareness: The Standing Committee must develop and implement public awareness programs to inform citizens about the hit-and-run compensation scheme.
• Police Responsibility: Police are now required to proactively inform victims of hit-and-run accidents about the scheme and assist them in filing claims.
• Monitoring Committees: District-level monitoring committees will be formed to oversee the implementation of the scheme and ensure compliance with the court’s directions.
• Time Limit Extension: The Central Government is directed to consider extending the time limit for claims under the previous Solatium Scheme.
• Enhanced Compensation: The Central Government is directed to consider enhancing the compensation amounts annually to account for the diminishing value of money.

The judgment has the potential to significantly improve the lives of victims of hit-and-run accidents by ensuring that they have access to the compensation they are entitled to. The directions issued by the court will create a more proactive and victim-centric approach to the implementation of the scheme.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The Standing Committee to consider the annual report submitted by the General Insurance Council and make recommendations to the Central Government for the amendment of the Scheme, if necessary.
• The Standing Committee to issue directions for the effective implementation of the Scheme, addressing the concern that very few eligible claimants are taking benefit of the Scheme.
• The Standing Committee to issue elaborate directions for developing public awareness and for sensitisation of the members of the public about the Scheme.
• The Standing Committee to report compliance with the directions to the Court within four months.
• If the particulars of the vehicle involved in the accident are not available, the police must inform the victim or the legal representatives of the deceased about the availability of the Scheme and provide contact details of the jurisdictional Claims Enquiry Officer.
• The police must forward the First Accident Report (FAR) to the Claims Enquiry Officer within one month from the date of the accident.
• A Monitoring Committee shall be constituted at every district level.
• The Claims Enquiry Officer shall ensure that a report containing his recommendation and other documents are forwarded to the Claim Settlement Commissioner within one month from receipt of the claim application.
• The Registry of the Supreme Court shall forward a copy of this order to the Member Secretaries of the Legal Services Authorities of each State and Union Territories.
• The Secretaries of the District Legal Services Authorities shall submit quarterly reports on the functioning of the Monitoring Committees.
• The Central Government to consider whether the compensation amounts can be gradually enhanced annually.
• The Central Government to consider whether the time limit prescribed in sub-clause (2) of clause 20 of the Solatium Scheme can be extended.

Specific Amendments Analysis

(Omitted as the judgment does not discuss any specific amendment)

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the authorities are required to take proactive measures to ensure that the benefits of the hit-and-run compensation scheme reach the intended beneficiaries. The judgment emphasizes the need for public awareness, police involvement, and simplified procedures to facilitate access to compensation. This judgment reinforces the state’s duty to protect its citizens and provide them with social justice.

This judgment does not overrule any previous positions of law but rather clarifies and reinforces the existing legal framework. It provides a practical roadmap for the effective implementation of the hit-and-run compensation scheme.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in S. Rajaseekaran vs. Union of India is a significant step towards ensuring that victims of hit-and-run accidents receive the compensation they are entitled to. The court’s directions address the systemic issues that have hindered the effective implementation of the scheme. By mandating proactive measures by the authorities, the court has sought to create a more accessible and victim-centric system. The judgment is a reminder of the state’s responsibility to protect its citizens and provide them with social justice.

Category

• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
  • Section 161, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
  • Hit and Run Accidents
  • Compensation Scheme
• Road Safety
  • Accident Compensation
  • Traffic Laws
• Insurance Law
  • General Insurance Council
  • Motor Insurance
• Legal Aid
  • District Legal Services Authority
  • Access to Justice

FAQ

Q: What is the hit-and-run compensation scheme?

A: The hit-and-run compensation scheme is a program under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, that provides financial compensation to victims of hit-and-run accidents or their families. The scheme is designed to help those who are injured or killed in accidents where the responsible vehicle cannot be identified.

Q: How much compensation is provided under the scheme?

A: Currently, the scheme provides Rs. 2 lakhs for death and Rs. 50,000 for grievous hurt. The Supreme Court has directed the Central Government to consider enhancing these amounts annually.

Q: What should I do if I am involved in a hit-and-run accident?

A: You should immediately report the accident to the nearest police station. The police are now required to inform you about the compensation scheme and assist you in filing a claim. Make sure to get a copy of the First Accident Report (FAR).

Q: How do I file a claim under the scheme?

A: After reporting the accident to the police, they will forward the FAR to the Claims Enquiry Officer. If you do not receive any information within a month, you can contact the District Legal Services Authority for assistance.

Q: What is the role of the District Legal Services Authority?

A: The District Legal Services Authority will assist you in filing your claim and provide guidance throughout the process. They will also monitor the implementation of the scheme in your district.

Q: What are the new directions given by the Supreme Court?

A: The Supreme Court has directed the Central Government to consider enhancing the compensation amounts annually and has also directed the authorities to take proactive measures to ensure that the benefits of the scheme reach the intended beneficiaries. The court has also directed the police to inform victims about the scheme and assist them in filing claims.

Q: What if I was eligible under the old Solatium Scheme but did not apply in time?

A: The Supreme Court has directed the Central Government to consider extending the time limit for claims under the old Solatium Scheme as a one-time measure.