National Law Institute University

Bhopal, (462044)

Project on:

Hit and Run cases (India)

Submitted to: Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava

Assitant Professor (Law Relating to Natural Resource and Environment, Insurance Law)

Submitted by: Amit Mate

Enrolment number: A-0886, Roll number: 2009 B.A.LL.B. 24

Index
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
HYPOTHESIS
INTRODUCTION
IMPORTANT CASES:

Vimlaben Bhupatsinh Barot V. District Collector

: New India Assurance Co. Ltd .V.: Rajendra Prasad Bhatt and others

Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors. V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda

CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acknowledgement
This project is an outcome of my labour and research on the aforementioned topic: Hit and
Run cases (India). Through the means of this acknowledgement I would like to thank all the
people without whos kind cooperation this project wouldnt have been success. I would like
to thank our Insurance Law professor Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, the librarian who
helped mw throughout the research and also last but not the least my friends who had
always been there for my support.

Hypothesis
In this project I have decided to research on the topic Hit and Run cases in India. I would be
doing so by analysing some recent cases on Hit and Run, their ratios and also studying the
relevant law dealing with this situation in India. The concerned law that I have laid focus on
in this Project is The Motor Vehicles Act 1998 with special emphasis on
1. Sections 163. Scheme for payment of compensation in case of hit and run motor
accidents.
2. Section 161. Special provisions as to compensation in case of hit and run motor
accident.
3. Section 163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured
formula basis.
4. Section 162. Refund in certain cases of compensation paid under section 161 (1).

Introduction
This project deals with the cases relating to Hit and Run. This issue has recently gained
tremendous public attention after the Famous BMW Hit and Run case. With the increase
in vehicles on the road amount of accidents are also starting to rise up. One of these is
Hit and Run. To understand this issue in detail Id like to bring in light some of the
landmark case laws that have shaped the Indian law relating to Hit and Run.
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a piece of social legislation and its provisions are
designed to protect the rights of road accident victims where the identity of motor
vehicle causing the accident cannot be established.

The relevant legal provision is

enshrined in Section 161 of Motor Vehicles Act where a hit and run motor accident is
defined as 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.
This Scheme came into force from 1.10.1982.

This Section provides for payment of compensation as follows:

In respect of the death of any person resulting from a hit and run motor accident,

now a fixed sum of Rs.50,000

In respect of grievous hurt to any person resulting from a hit and run motor accident,

now a fixed sum of Rs.25,000

IMPORTANT CASE LAWS

Equivalent Citation: 1991ACJ342, 1991ACJ342, (1990)2GLR1190
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Decided On: 31.03.2006
Appellants: Vimlaben Bhupatsinh Barot
Vs.
Respondent: District Collector
Disposition: Petition allowed
Case Note:

Motor Vehicles - Grant of payment - Petition filed praying that Respondent authorities be
directed to pay amount of sum to Petitioner as petitioner's husband has died in a hit and
run accident - Held, in instant case, Petitioner's husband had died due to certain
complications which arose when husband was being treated for injury - Therefore, all
necessary ingredients for claiming benefit under provisions of Section 109-A of the 1939 Act
were proved in this case - Petition allowed.
Facts: 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 over. Bhupatsinh received injuries.
He was taken to 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.
Ratio: 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(damages
awarded for emotional suffering) 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-Aof 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.

Final Law lead down: 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 under Section 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.

Equivalent Citation: 2002ACJ1762, 2001(1)MPHT259

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR)
Writ Petition No. 4520/99
Decided On: 11.07.2007
Appellants: New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Vs.
Respondent: Rajendra Prasad Bhatt and others
Disposition: Writ Petition allowed
Case Note:
Motor Vehicles Jurisdiction Sections 161 and 163 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- Claimants
filed claim for compensation before Tribunal under Sections 161 and 163 of Act on account
of death of their father in hit and run motor accident Petitioner (insurance company) raise
objection in regard to maintainability of application of claim Objection overruled Hence,
present petition filed by insurance company Held, considering Rule 20 of Scheme it was
clear that particular forum has been provided for claiming compensation in case of hit and
run motor accidents Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to decide compensation in hit and
run motor accident case Thus, application before Tribunal for claiming compensation in hit
and run case is not maintainable Thus, petition allowed and application rejected

Equivalent
Citation:
I(2004)ACC728,
AIR2004SC2107,
2004(3)ALD81(SC),
2004(5)ALLMR(SC)674,
2004(5)ALT11(SC),
2004
2
AWC(Supp)2011SC,
[2004]120CompCas292(SC),
110(2004)DLT523(SC),
2004(75)DRJ132,
2004GLH(180)24,
2004GLH(24)180,
(2004)2GLR1597,
JT2004(4)SC83,
2004(2)KLT395(SC),
2004(2)OLR266,
(2004)137PLR271,
RLW2004(2)SC252,
2004(3)SCALE546,
(2004)5SCC385,
[2004]3SCR213,
2004(1)U.D.444,
2004(2)UJ1100
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Decided On: 18.03.2004

Appellants: Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Baroda
Disposition: Appeal dismissed
Case Note:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 140, 163A and 166--Compensation for motor accident-Compensation on basis of no fault liability under Sections 140 and 163A--Whether remedy
of compensation under Section 163A is interim in nature?--Held, no--It is final relief-Whether remedy under Sections 163A and 166 can be claimed simultaneously?--Held, no-Claimant must opt either to go for proceeding under Section 163A or under Section 166, but
not under both--Certain directions issued on facts of case.
The scheme envisaged under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, leaves no
manner of doubt that by reason thereof, the rights and obligations of the parties are to be
determined finally. The amount of compensation payable under the aforementioned
provisions is not to be altered or varied in any other proceedings. It does not contain any
provision providing for set off against a higher compensation unlike Section 140. In terms of
the said provision, a distinct and specified class of citizens, namely, persons whose income
per annum is Rs. 40,000 or less is covered thereunder whereas Sections 140 and 166 cater
to all sections of society. Therefore, the remedy for payment of compensation both under
Sections 163A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, being final and independent of each
other as statutorily provided, a claimant cannot pursue his remedies thereunder

simultaneously. One, thus, must opt/elect to go either for a proceeding under Section 163A
or under Section 166 of the Act, but not under both.
Parliament intended to provide for adjustment or refund of the compensation payable on
the basis of no fault liability, as for example, Sections 140 and 161 in case of hitand run
motor accident, from the amount of compensation payable under the award on the basis of
fault liability under Section 168 of the Act, the same has expressly been provided for and
having regard to the fact that no such procedure for refund or adjustment of compensation
has been provided for in relation to the proceedings under Section 163A of the Act, it must
be held that the scheme of the provisions under Sections 163A and 166 are distinct and
separate in nature.

Conclusion
Thus by analysing these cases was have come to a conclusion that a situation must fulfil the
criteria of hit and run accidents as lead down by the aforementioned case laws of our
honourable courts. Although one more conclusion can also be derived which states that
every case in hit and run road accident is unique and thus requires analysing deeply the
facts and circumstances separately.

Bibliography:

Motor Vehicles Act 1998

Manupatra (for cases)

Vakilno1.com

Course material as provided in the class