Sunday 27 September 2015


The main reason for this post aroused while I was watching a live question answer programme on a famous tv channel on the subject of compensation for hit and run accident case. I felt that the answer given by an expert legal consultant in the subject (as claimed) that there is no provision to claim compensation in a case of hit and run road accident case where details of vehicle are not know is not correct. What he told in the programme was that the claim tribunal would reject the case if the details of the vehicle is not known. It is only half truth. There is a provision in Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to cover such cases. But the procedure is different.

This Section provides for payment of compensation as follows:

If the hit and run motor accident resulted in the death of any person a fixed sum of Rs.25,000/-.
If the hit and run motor accident resulted in grievous hurt to any person a fixed sum of Rs.12,500/-.
I feel that this amount is very nominal particularly when the treatment expenses are concerned.

Again, this amount is refundable if any other compensation is received in the normal course for the same accident.


“The victim of the “hit-and-run” vehicle or his legal representative shall make an application to the Claim Enquiry Officer in each Taluka.  After due enquiries, the Claims Enquiry Officer will submit a report together with certificate of post mortem or injury certificate to the claims settlement commissioner who will either the District Collector or the Deputy Commissioner at the District level.  He will process the claims and sanction the payment within 15 days from the receipt of report from Claim Enquiry Officer and communicate sanction order to the nominated office of the Insurance Company. The compensation under Hit and Run Accident cases are made from a Solatium Fund which is contributed by General Insurance industry under an agreed formula.  The administration of claims is done by New India Assurance Co Ltd which has nominated one Divisional Manager in each district at District Level Committee which is headed by District Collector.” (reference:

(N.B. This is not a legal advice. Only for general information.)

Thursday 24 September 2015


The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order in its judgement dated 23/09/2015 and directed the High Court to decide the case again after hearing the parties in accordance with law. Does it mean that what was done is not according to law?

Facts of the case is that, the State of Rajasthan preferred a Criminal Appeal NO.1246 OF 2015 (S.L.P. [Crl.] No.1621 of 2014) against the judgment dated 29.5.2013 passed by the High Court. The trial court had convicted the accused for commission of an offence under section 302 and section 458 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and RI for seven years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively for the aforesaid offences. While maintaining conviction and sentence under section 458 IPC, the High Court had altered conviction from section 302 to section 304 Part II and sentenced him to the period already undergone, i.e. 8 years and 7 months. 

The Supreme Court’s own words are self-explanatory: -

“It is crystal clear that the High Court has not considered the evidence, neither the nature of injuries nor method and manner in which they were inflicted. The High Court has also not considered the aspect whether the accused intended to inflict injuries so as to cause the death. Even the circumstances to take the case out of the purview of section 302 have also not been discussed by the High Court. Simpliciter, it has been observed that a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence has been made but we find from the judgment that no such exercise has been done. Mere statement in the judgment to that effect is not enough. Evidence is not only required to be mentioned in the judgment but its evidentiary value has to be assessed carefully. No such exercise has been made. 

Thus, we have no hesitation to set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court. While allowing appeal, we remit the matter to the High Court to decide the same again after hearing the parties in accordance with law. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The High Court is required to reconsider the matter in accordance with law and to decide the appeal de novo after hearing the parties. The respondent-accused shall remain on bail for a period of four weeks from the date of the judgment during which time he will be free to apply to the High Court for regular bail."

Quality - One of the main reason for prolonged litigation and accumulation for cases for years together.

Thursday 17 September 2015


The GOI, DOPT has issued an OFFICE MEMORANDUM No.25013/0 I /2013-Estt.A-1V Dated Il thSeptember, 2015 detailing the details and procedure to be followed in the case of compulsory retirement under the Fundamental rule and the Pension rules. This is mainly referring to the DOPT’s OM No. 25013/1/2013-Estt(A) dated 21/03/2014 on the periodical review under Fundamental Rule 56 or Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules. It also quote the instructions/precautions issued by the Supreme court in the case of State of Gujrat Vs. Umedbhai M.Patel, 2001(3) SCC 314 as follows:
(i) Whenever the services of a public servant are no longer useful to the general administration, the officer can be compulsorily retired for the sake of public interest.
(ii) Ordinarily, the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment coming under Article 311 of the Constitution.
(iii) "For better administration, it is necessary to chop off dead wood, but the order of compulsory retirement can be passed after having due regard to the entire service record of the officer."
(iv) Any adverse entries made in the confidential record shall be taken note of and be given due weightage in passing such order.
(v) Even un-communicated entries in the confidential record can also be taken into consideration.
(vi) The order of compulsory retirement shall not be passed as a short cut to avoid Departmental enquiry when such course is more desirable.
(vii) If the officer was given a promotion despite adverse entries made in the confidential record that is a fact in favour of the officer.
(viii) Compulsory retirement shall not be imposed as a punitive measure.
There are also many other cases referred in support of the administration. There are also various technical procedures mentioned in the OM.
But the main lacuna in the OM is that it is silent about the Supreme Court cases went against the Administration not following these instructions.

In reality the purpose of the provision is not followed. If followed, nearly 70% of the total beurocracy would have been vacant and youngsters would have got more chance of employment. The provision is generally used to silence the persons who are not liked by the corrupt administration for personal interest and not the general administration for the sake of public interest as per the instructions of the Supreme Court mentioned above.