VIMLABEN BHUPATSINH BAROT Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners husband named Bhupatsinh Barot was travelling by a rickshaw on 7/06/1985 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 the rickshaw 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 15/06/1985 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.

(2.) In view of the aforesaid position the petitioner applied to respondent No. 1 herein for payment of an amount of Rs. 5000.00 from the Solatium Fund Scheme 1982 The application has been rejected as per communication dated 3/01/1987 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. 5000.00 to the petitioner as the petitioners husband has died in a hit and run accident.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out the provisions of Sec. 109A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 which was applicable to the facts of the case at the relevant time. Section 109A (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 Sec. 109C 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 under Sec. 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.