1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2137/07 Ramniwas Jat Vs. State of Raj. & Anr. Date of order : 1/2/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Arvind Sharma for the petitioner. Shri Sanjay Srivastava, Dy. Govt. Counsel for the State. Shri Virendra Agarwal for the respondent no.2. ****** The writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the respondent Oriental Insurance Company be directed to release the amount of solatium to petitioner on account of the accidental death of his father. Such order was passed by the District Collector cum District Magistrate, Alwar who has been designated as Claim Settlement Commissioner as per the provisions of Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner 2 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. 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 there are reasonable grounds to condone 3 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. 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 4 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 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 5 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 6 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 stands, the respondent insurance company is bound to comply the same. The writ petition is therefore 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 order is served upon them. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/