01Facts
The appellants (claimants) are legal heirs of Devesh Kudshyam, who died in a "hit and run" motor accident on 05.10.2017
¶ 4The Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, awarded the claimants ₹50,000/- as compensation along with interest in Claims Case No. 14 of 2018
¶ 1The appellants filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking an enhancement of the compensation amount
¶ 1the parties acknowledged that the matter falls under the specific category of a hit and run case
¶ 202Issues
i.1. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation under the "Compensation to Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022" despite the accident occurring prior to the scheme’s notification
¶ 2 & 4ii.2. Whether the High Court can direct the statutory authorities to process the claim in a time-bound manner to mitigate the delay of eight years
¶ 4-503Law Applied
The court applied Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019), which enhanced compensation for hit and run victims
p. 3It primarily relied on the "Compensation to Victims of Hit and Run Motor Accidents Scheme, 2022," which superseded the Solatium Scheme, 1989, and established a compensation of ₹2,00,000 for death and ₹50,000 for grievous hurt
pp. 2-3The court also noted the procedural framework for claim settlement involving the Claims Enquiry Officer (Sub-Divisional Officer), the Claims Settlement Commissioner (District Magistrate), and the General Insurance (GI) Council
pp. 3-6Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 173
04Reasoning
The court observed that the claimants had been litigating for eight years following the 2017 accident
¶ 4Recognizing the case as a "hit and run," the court integrated the 2022 Scheme's enhanced compensation provisions into the present appeal. It determined that the appropriate remedy was not a standard enhancement by the Tribunal, but a transition to the statutory scheme which provides a fixed sum of ₹2,00,000 for death
¶ 2The court analyzed the procedural requirements of the Scheme, noting that the Claims Enquiry Officer must decide within one month and the transfer of funds must happen within 15 days thereafter
p. 3To ensure justice for the long-suffering claimants, the court exercised its jurisdiction to set aside the lower tribunal's award and directed the Revenue authorities (SDO and Collector) to process the application specifically under the 2022 Scheme’s timeline
¶ 405Holding
The High Court set aside the impugned award and disposed of the appeal, granting the claimants liberty to apply before the Claims Enquiry Officer/SDO (Revenue), Kanker, under the 2022 Scheme
¶ 4The Court directed the SDO and the Claims Settlement Commissioner (Collector) to conclude the enquiry and ensure the payment of enhanced compensation within 60 days of application
¶ 4The Court further directed the Amicus Curiae to inform the concerned authorities to prioritize the case given the eight-year delay
¶ 5Original Court PDF
NARSINGH KUDSHYAMvsSANDEEP BHAGAT
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
