Allowed

Ramniwas Jat v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC1 Feb 2008CW/2137/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition directing an insurance company to release Rs.25,000 solatium awarded by the Claim Settlement Commissioner for the petitioner's father's accidental death in a hit-and-run case, dismissing the insurer's plea regarding late claim submission under the Solatium Scheme.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent insurance company to release payment of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner within thirty days from the date the copy of this order is served.

Ramniwas Jat Vs State and Anr. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2137/07
Ramniwas Jat Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.

¶4

Date of order : 1/2/2008.

¶5

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶6

Shri Arvind Sharma for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjay Srivastava, Dy. Govt. Counsel
for the State.

¶7

Shri Virendra Agarwal for the respondent
no.2.

¶8

******

¶9

The writ petition has been filed with

¶10

the prayer that the respondent Oriental
Insurance Company be directed to release

¶11

the amount of solatium to petitioner on
account of the accidental death of his
father. Such order was passed by the
DistrictCollectorcumDistrict

¶12

Magistrate, Alwar who has been designated
as Claim Settlement Commissioner as per

¶13

the provisions of Section 161 of the
Motor Vehicles Act,1988.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner

¶15

¶16

argued that when in compliance of the
said order passed on 17.12.2002, the
respondent Insurance Company did not make
the payment of the aforesaid solatium,
the petitioner again approached the
District Collector who again reiterated
the said order on 22.7.2006.

¶17

Learned counsel for the Insurance
Company argued that claim of the
petitioner was rejected by the Insurance
Company on the premise that the
petitioner did not submit the claim
within six moths as provided for by
clause 20(2) of the Solatium Scheme,
1989. It is argued that proviso to the
aforesaid clause further states that an
application made after six months but not
after 12 months from the date of accident
may be accepted by the Claims Settlement
Commissioner, if he is satisfied that

¶18

there are reasonable grounds to condone

¶19

¶20

the delay. Learned counsel argued that
the Solatium Scheme, 1989 being a welfare
scheme, there is no contract of insurance
between the Insurance Company and the
petitioner and for that matter, his
deceased father and the respondent
insurance company is not bound to comply
with the order passed by the Claim
Settlement Officer because in the present
case, the claim petition was submitted
one year after the date of accident on
17.12.2002 whereas the accident took
place on 7.11.2000.

¶21

Although this fact is averred by the
insurance company but the District
Collector who is impleaded as party
respondent no.1 has chosen not to submit
any reply to admit or deny the fact
whether application was submitted by the
petitioner in time. On perusing the
contents of the petition, it is evident

¶22

¶23

that a written report of the accident was
submitted by the petitioner at Police
Station Behror, District Alwar on
7.11.2000, which was registered as First

¶24

Information Report No.531/2000 and
investigation officer however could not
trace out the vehicle which was
responsible for the accident. Though
insurance company does not deny the fact
that death of petitioner's father was
result of a hit and run motor accident,
they refused to comply the order passed
by the Claim Settlement Commissioner on
the spacious plea that the Commissioner
had no competence to entertain and allow
the application because it was made one
year after the date of accident. From the
facts of the case, it is revealed that it
was a hit and run motor accident and on
account of the lodgment of FIR by the
petitioner, the District administration

¶25

¶26

became aware of the accident immediately
and the District Magistrate on the basis
of the established fact that it was a hit
and run motor accident in his discretion
awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the
petitioner. When the Claim Settlement
Commissioner has on the basis of proven
facts awarded a solatium in the sum of
Rs.25,000/-, the defence set up by the
insurance company specially when they
have not decided to challenge the said
order on the assumed incompetence of
Commissioner cannot be appreciated.
Merely because the petitioner on being
required submitted an affidavit regarding
the date of accident of his father before
the District Magistrate on 17.1.2002, it
cannot be assumed that that was the date
on which for the first time information
about the accident was given. In any
case, the provision aforesaid being part

¶27

¶28

of the Solatium Scheme, 1989, which is a
welfare scheme, are required to be
construed liberally. So long as the order
passed by the Claim Settlement Officer

¶29

stands, the respondent insurance company
is bound to comply the same.

¶30

The writ petition is therefore

¶31

allowed. The respondent insurance company
is directed to release payment of
Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner within
thirty days from the date copy of this

¶32

order is served upon them.

¶33

 (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.

¶34

RS/

Ramniwas Jat v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramniwas Jat v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit Jaga Vs Shri R K Verma and Ors.

Bhanwr Lal Vs Commissioner,C.a.D.,Ignp,Bkn and Ors.

Shyam Singh Tamboli Vs a.v.v.N.Ltd.,Ajmer and Ors.

M/S Star Delta Transformers Lt Vs Chairman andMANAGING Director and

Subhash Chand Vs Shiv Shankar and Ors.

Inderraj Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.