STUDYNAMA.

COM

Law (LLB) Project Report

Hit & Run Cases - Criminal Law Project

Report

Scroll below to access your study material ▼▼

Disclaimer

Please note none of the content or study material in this document or content in
this file is prepared or owned by Studynama.com. This content is shared by our
student partners and we do not hold any copyright on this content.
Please let us know if the content in this file infringes any of your copyright by
writing to us at: info@studynama.com and we will take appropriate action.

1
Download Free Notes, Projects, Solved Papers for your course below:
Classes 6-8
⋅ Class 6 Notes & Guide
⋅ Class 7 Notes & Guide
⋅ Class 8 Notes & Guide
⋅ Projects & Practical
Engineering
⋅ CSE Notes & Projects
⋅ ECE Notes & Projects
⋅ EE Notes & Projects
⋅ ME Notes & Projects
⋅ Civil Notes & Projects
Entrance Exam Preparation – Solved Papers, Notes, Cutoffs
Engineering Exams
⋅ IIT-JEE Mains
⋅ IITJEE Advanced
⋅ BITSAT 2019
⋅ VITEEE/SRMEEE
⋅ MH-CET 2019
Classes 9-10 Classes 11-12 Study Abroad
⋅ Class 11/12 PCMB
⋅ Class 9 & 10 Notes ⋅ IELTS Online Free
Notes, eBook, Projects
⋅ Class 9 & 10 Projects Preparation
⋅ Class 11/12 Commerce
⋅ Class 9 & 10 Solved Notes, Projects, Papers ⋅ English Training for SAT,
Previous/Sample Board GMAT, GRE, TOEFL,
⋅ Class 11/12 Arts Notes, IELTS, PTE
Papers
Projects, Papers
Medical Law – LLB/LLM BBA/MBA
⋅ BBA Notes & Projects
⋅ MBBS Notes & Cases ⋅ LLB/LLM Notes, eBooks MBA Notes & Projects:
FREE PDF Download
⋅ BDS Notes & Cases ⋅ MBA Marketing
⋅ LLB/LLM Projects,
⋅ BHMS Notes & Cases ⋅ MBA Finance
Training Reports &
⋅ BPharma Notes & Cases Solved Cases ⋅ MBA HR
⋅ MBA Operations
MBA Entrance Exams Medical Entrance Law Entrance Prep
⋅ CAT ⋅ AIIMS Medical
⋅ CLAT 2019
⋅ XAT ⋅ NEET (AIPMT)
⋅ LSAT 2019
⋅ IIFT ⋅ AIPVT Medical
⋅ SSLC, ILSAT, ILICAT,
⋅ SNAP MBA ⋅ AFMC Medical
GNDU CET, AILET
⋅ MAT, CMAT, MH-CET ⋅ BHU-PMT, CMC Vellore
Project on:

Hit and Run cases (India)

m
c o
.
a
m
a
yn
d
tu
S
 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

m
c o
.
a
m
a
yn
d
tu
S
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 who’s kind cooperation this project wouldn’t 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.

m
c o
.
a
m
a
yn
d
tu
S
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).

m
c o
.
a
m
a
Introduction
yn
d
u
t attention after the Famous BMW Hit and Run case. With the increase
This project deals with the cases relating to Hit and Run. This issue has recently gained

S
tremendous public
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 I’d 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

m
c o
.
a
m
a
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS yn
d
tu
Equivalent Citation: 1991ACJ342, 1991ACJ342, (1990)2GLR1190

S
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
m
o
account of the injury received by him in an automobile accident he was admitted in hospital
c
.
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. a
m
a
Ratio: The authorities took the view that 'hit and run' cases would only be those where two

y n
motor vehicles may collide with each other. Since it was not a case of collision of two motor
d authorities have refused to grant solatium(damages
tusuffering) to the petitioner. The definition of hit and run cases
vehicles in this case the respondent
awarded for emotional
S would take within its sweep even accident which may have arisen
referred to hereinabove
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.
m
o
5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) to the petitioner as provided under Section 109-A of the
c
.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The amount shall be paid to the petitioner latest before May 30,
a
1990. If the amount is not paid on or before May 30, 1990 thereafter the amount payable to
m
a
the petitioner shall carry 15 per cent interest per annum. Rule made absolute accordingly

yn
with no order as to costs.

d
tu
S
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:

m
Motor Vehicles – Jurisdiction – Sections 161 and 163 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- Claimants

c o
.
filed claim for compensation before Tribunal under Sections 161 and 163 of Act on account

a
of death of their father in hit and run motor accident – Petitioner (insurance company) raise

m
objection in regard to maintainability of application of claim – Objection overruled – Hence,
a – Held, considering Rule 20 of Scheme it was
n
present petition filed by insurance company
clear that particular forum hasy been provided for claiming compensation in case of hit and
d did not have jurisdiction to decide compensation in hit and
u
run motor accidents – Tribunal
run motor accidentt
S
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

m
Case Note:
c o
.
a
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 140, 163A and 166--Compensation for motor accident--

m
Compensation on basis of no fault liability under Sections 140 and 163A--Whether remedy
a
Whether remedy under Sectionsy163Anand 166 can be claimed simultaneously?--Held, no--
of compensation under Section 163A is interim in nature?--Held, no--It is final relief--

dgo for proceeding under Section 163A or under Section 166, but
u
Claimant must opt either to
t directions issued on facts of case.
S
not under both--Certain

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.

m
Conclusion
c o
.
a
Thus by analysing these cases was have come to a conclusion that a situation must fulfil the

m
criteria of hit and run accidents as lead down by the aforementioned case laws of our
a
n
honourable courts. Although one more conclusion can also be derived which states that
every case in hit and run roady
d
accident is unique and thus requires analysing deeply the

t u
facts and circumstances separately.

Bibliography:
 Motor Vehicles Act 1998
 Manupatra (for cases)
 Vakilno1.com
 Course material as provided in the class

m
c o
.
a
m
a
yn
d
tu
S