Vimlaben Bhupatsinh Barot vs District Collector

A.P. Ravani, J.—The petitioner''s husband, named Bhupatsinh Barot, was travelling by a rickshaw on June 7,1985 at about 3.00 p.m. He was proceeding from Raipur to Bapunagar area of Ahmedabad city. When his rickshaw passed near the locality of Chhabila Hanuman at Raipur, the rickshaw met with an accident and it turned turtle. Bhupatsinh received injuries on his left and right thighs and lower portion of right leg. He was taken to V.S. Hospital. There he was treated for the injuries received by him. Ultimately on June 15,1985, he succumbed to the injuries, probably on account of the fact that certain complications had arisen, after he received the injuries. However, the fact remains that on account of the injury received by him in an automobile accident he was admitted in hospital and he died due to the injuries received by him. Despite efforts, the rickshaw in which he was travelling could not be traced or found.

In view of the aforesaid position the petitioner applied to respondent No. 1 herein for payment of an amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the Solatium Fund Scheme, 1982. The application has been rejected as per communication dated January 3,1987 stating that the case is not covered by ''hit and run cases''. Hence the petitioner has approached this court and has prayed that the respondent authorities be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner as the petitioner''s husband has died in a hit and run accident.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the provisions of Section 109-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which was applicable to the facts of the case at the relevant time. Section 109-A (1) (b) defines the phrase ''hit and run motor accident''. It 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. The scheme is framed under the provisions of Section 109-C of the Act and it was called Solatium Fund Scheme of 1982. After the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, similar provision has been inserted u/s 161 (3) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner would be able to claim the benefit only under the provisions of 1939 Act, since the accident occurred when the 1939 Act was in force.

The authorities took the view that ''hit and run'' cases would only be those where two motor vehicles may collide with each other. Since it was not a case of collision of two motor vehicles in this case the respondent authorities have refused to grant solatium to the petitioner. The definition of hit and run cases referred to hereinabove would take within its sweep even accident which may have arisen out of use of motor vehicle without there being collision with other vehicle. It is not necessary that there should be collision between two motor vehicles and only then it can be said to be ''hit and run'' motor accident. The definition of ''hit and run cases'' is self-evident. Therefore, no further elaboration is necessary. Once it is shown that the accident has arisen out of use of the motor vehicle and the motor vehicle is not traceable despite reasonable efforts, provisions of Section 109-A of the 1939 Act would be attracted. Similar provision is made in the 1988 Act also. But we are not concerned with that provision as far as the facts and circumstances of this case are concerned.

In the instant case the fact that the petitioner''s husband met with an accident when he was travelling in rickshaw on June 7, 1985 is not disputed. Moreover, the same stands amply proved, because the petitioner''s husband was immediately admitted in Vadilal Sarabhai Hospital. The inquest panchnama dated June 15, 1985 has been produced on record. That also refers to the aforesaid accident and the deceased having died on account of complications which arose due to the injuries. The post-mortem notes as well as other police papers also support the case of the petitioner that the deceased had met with an accident when he was travelling in a rickshaw and he was immediately admitted in V.S. Hospital. Thereafter, as stated herein-above he has died due to certain complications which arose when he was being treated for the injury. Therefore, all the necessary ingredients for claiming benefit under the provisions of Section 109-A of the 1939 Act and under the provisions of the Solatium Fund Scheme of 1982 are proved in this case.

In the result the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to make payment of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) to the petitioner as provided u/s 109-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The amount shall be paid to the petitioner latest before May 30, 1990. If the amount is not paid on or before May 30, 1990 thereafter the amount payable to the petitioner shall carry 15 per cent interest per annum. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.