JUDGMENT : 1) This MACMA is preferred by the claimant aggrieved by the Award dated 14-10-2008 in MVOP No.130 of 208 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor (for short “the Tribunal”) whereunder the learned Chairman dismissed the petition of the claimant on the ground that claim petition which arise out of death of claimant’s father in a hit and run motor vehicle accident is not maintainable before the Tribunal. 2) The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant herein and the General Insurance Company Limited represented by its Company by name the United India Insurance Company Limited, Chittoor who was the respondent before the Tribunal is the respondent herein. 3) The factual matrix of the case is thus: a) The claimant is the only son of A.Viswanatha Chetty and Kuppamma of Puthalapattu village, Chittoor District. They were living by doing cooli work. While so, on 25-10-2005 at about 1.30 A.M., when the parents of the claimant were returning from hospital and passing near Sanjeevarayanipalli cross on Chittoor—Tirupathi road, at that time an unknown vehicle which was passing on that way being driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came and hit his parents causing their death. On the complaint given by R.Kesavulu Naidu resident of Konappareddipalle, the police of Pakala registered a case in Cr.No.67 of 2005 under Section 304A of IPC as hit and run case. After that police filed final report treating the case as ‘undetectable’. It is the case of the claimant that accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of unknown vehicle. On these pleas claimant filed O.P. under Section 161 and 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) against General Insurance Company claiming compensation of Rs.25,000/- as provided under Section 161 of the Act for the death of his father. b) The respondent filed counter and opposed the claim mainly contending that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim application under Section 163 of the Act. It was contended that as per the scheme formulated by the Central Government under Section 163 of the Act, the Tribunal was not appointed under the said scheme for making enquiry to settle the claim. It was contended that as per the scheme formulated by the Central Government under Section 163 of the Act, the Tribunal was not appointed under the said scheme for making enquiry to settle the claim. c) The award shows that the Tribunal has formulated a preliminary point on jurisdiction as — “Whether this Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain the application for compensation in case of hit and run motor accident cases”?and held that as per the Solatium Scheme, 1989 framed in terms of Section 163 of the Act, the Tribunal is not appointed as authority for grant of compensation in hit and run motor accident case. The Tribunal having relied upon the decisions reported in SAROJA AND OTHERS v. GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2004 ACJ 645)and NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. RAJENDRA PRASAD BHAT AND OTHERS ( 2002 ACJ 1762 ) held that as per the scheme formulated under Section 163 of the Act the present application filed by the claimant, claiming compensation for the death of his father in a hit and run motor accident, is not maintainable before the Tribunal. Accordingly the Tribunal rejected the claim petition. Hence the present appeal. 4) Heard the arguments of Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Bhaskar Rao Bandarupalli, learned counsel for respondent. 5) Fulminating the award of the Tribunal learned counsel for appellant mainly contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition filed under section 161 of the Act. Drawing the distinction between the claim under Section 161 and 163 of the Act, learned counsel submitted that in cases of hit and run accidents, concerned claimant is entitled to claim fixed compensation of Rs.25,000/- in case of death and Rs.12,500/- in respect of grievous hurt and he can make such a claim under Section 161 of the Act following the provisions of Section 166 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal can adjudicate the said claim and award Rs.25,000/- or Rs.12,500/-, as the case may be, to the claimant and to this extent the jurisdiction of Tribunal is not ousted since it is a special provision created under Section 161 of the Act in respect of hit and run accidents. The Tribunal can adjudicate the said claim and award Rs.25,000/- or Rs.12,500/-, as the case may be, to the claimant and to this extent the jurisdiction of Tribunal is not ousted since it is a special provision created under Section 161 of the Act in respect of hit and run accidents. a) Learned counsel further submitted that apart from the claim for fixed compensation under the special provision of Section 161 of the Act, the claimant will be entitled to make a full-fledged claim as per Solatium Scheme, 1989 formulated by the Central Government. He submitted that it is true as per the Solatium Scheme, 1989 authority for adjudicating the claims in hit and run cases is the Enquiry Officer i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer/Tahsildar and the Tribunals are not appointed for that purpose. However, learned counsel submitted, since the present claim is the one under Section 161 of the Act for fixed compensation of Rs.25,000/- but not under Section 163 of the Act, the Tribunal was not right in holding that it had no jurisdiction. He relied upon the following decisions to show that Tribunal has jurisdiction in respect of claims under Section 161 of the Act: 1. SAROJ AND OTHERS v. HET LAL AND OTHERS ( (2011) 1 SCC 388 ) 2. GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA v. L.RAJENDRA NAIDU (DIED) AND OTHERS ((Unreported judgment dt.20-07-2007 in CRP No.687 of 2007 of A.P. High Court)) 6) Per contra, learned counsel for respondent while supporting the award of the Tribunal vehemently argued that with the formulation of Solatium Scheme, 1989 by the Central Government, concerned claimant has to approach the Enquiry Officer appointed under the said scheme and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is expressly barred to entertain any of the claims either under Section 161 or under Section 163 of the Act. Hence the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim and therefore the appeal is not maintainable. He relied upon the decision reported in KONDA ANURADHA V. GOPIREDDY VENKAT REDDY ( 2008 (4) ALT 34 ). Hence the Tribunal rightly rejected the claim and therefore the appeal is not maintainable. He relied upon the decision reported in KONDA ANURADHA V. GOPIREDDY VENKAT REDDY ( 2008 (4) ALT 34 ). 7) In view of the above divergent arguments the point for determination in this appeal is: “Whether the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain an application for compensation under Section 161 of the Act in hit and run motor accident cases is ousted in view of Solatium Scheme, 1989?” 8) POINT: The word “hit and run motor accident” is defined under Section 161 (b) of the Act 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. A provision has been made in Sections 161 and 163 of the Act for providing compensation in hit and run motor accidents. A perusal of Sections 161 and 163 of the Act would show that two types of compensation are provided under these provisions. Under Section 161 of the Act, a fixed compensation of Rs.25,000/- in respect of death and Rs.12,500/- in respect of grievous hurt is provided. Whereas as per Solatium Scheme, 1989 formulated as per Section 163 of the Act, no such fixed amount is stipulated in the said scheme. The Claims Enquiry Officer appointed under the Solatium Scheme, 1989 will hold enquiry under Clause 21 and submit his enquiry report in Form No.III along with his recommendations (vide Form No.III of Solatium Scheme, 1989). In his report the Claims Enquiry Officer will recommend suitable amount payable to the claimant and forward to the Claims Settlement Commissioner. a) So a close scrutiny of Sections 161 and 163 of the Act will depict that fixed amount of compensation provided under the special provision of Section 161 is a sort of interim compensation whereas the compensation provided as per Solatium Scheme, 1989 formulated in terms of Section 163 of the Act is the regular compensation. A scrutiny of Solatium Scheme, 1989 tells us that as per the said scheme the Central Government have appointed “Claims Enquiry Officer” and “Claims Settlement Commissioner” to decide the compensation payable in respect of hit and run motor accidents. A scrutiny of Solatium Scheme, 1989 tells us that as per the said scheme the Central Government have appointed “Claims Enquiry Officer” and “Claims Settlement Commissioner” to decide the compensation payable in respect of hit and run motor accidents. Clause 2(b) and (c) of the scheme defines the terms Claims Enquiry Officer and Claims Settlement Commissioner as follows: (b) “Claims Enquiry Officer” means the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tahsildar, or any other officer in charge of the revenue sub-division of a Taluka in each revenue district of a State or such other officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer or a Tahsildar, as may be specified by the State government. (c) “Claims Settlement Commissioner” means the District Magistrate, the Deputy Commissioner, the Collector or any other officer-incharge of a revenue district in a State appointed as such by a State Government.” So it is clear that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals are not appointed as authority to decide the claim petitions filed under the provisions of Solatium Scheme, 1989. There is no demur in it. However, the contention of the appellant/claimant is that he filed claim petition not under the provisions of the Solatium Scheme, 1989 but under Section 161 of the Act and as per Section 161 (3) and (4) of the Act the claim for fixed compensation under sub-section (3) has to be filed as per the provisions of Section 166 (1) of the Act which means the said claim has to be filed before the regular Tribunal and therefore the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for granting fixed compensation under Section 161 of the Act is not ousted. (b) I find force in the above submission. As already discussed supra, Sections 161 and 163 of the Act operate on different spheres. Section 161 (3) is intended to provide immediate succor to the victims in the form of fixed compensation. Whereas under Section 163, the Central Government frames a scheme for payment of regular compensation in the cases of hit and run motor accidents. Hence what is intended under Section 163 of the Act is to formulate a comprehensive scheme for payment of full-fledged compensation. Accordingly the Central Government have framed Solatium Scheme, 1989 with the object of payment of compensation in cases of hit and run motor accidents. The Claims Enquiry Officer in the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer/Tahsildar is notified to conduct the enquiries. Accordingly the Central Government have framed Solatium Scheme, 1989 with the object of payment of compensation in cases of hit and run motor accidents. The Claims Enquiry Officer in the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer/Tahsildar is notified to conduct the enquiries. Clause 20 of the scheme prescribes procedure for making the application. According to it the applicant shall submit an application seeking compensation in Form I along with duly filled in discharge receipt in Form II and the undertaking in Form V to the Claims Enquiry Officer of the Sub-Division or Taluka in which the accident takes place. Such an application shall be made within six months from the date of accident. Then Clause 21 lays down that on receiving the claim application, the Claims Enquiry Officer shall obtain copies of FIR, inquest report, post mortem report or certificate of injury, as the case may be, from the concerned authorities and hold enquiry in respect of claims arising out of hit and run motor accidents and submit his report to the Claims Settlement Commissioner making his recommendations with regard to the amount of compensation submit his report to the Claims Settlement Commissioner making his recommendations with regard to the amount of compensation and naming the claimants who are eligible for payment compensation. Then Clause 22 lays down that on receiving the aforesaid report the Claims Settlement Commissioner shall sanction the claim and communicate the sanction order in Form IV along with duly discharge receipt in Form II and the undertaking in Form V to the nominated officer of the Insurance Company (General Insurance Corporation as per Clause 19). Then as per Clause 23 the nominated officer of the Insurance Company immediately on receipt of the aforesaid sanction order, shall make the payment to the claimants. This is the mode of settlement of the claims as per Solatium Scheme, 1989. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals are not authorized to settle the claims filed under the scheme. However, the fixed amount of compensation under Section 161 (3) of the Act is concerned, Section 161 (4) says that an application for fixed compensation shall be made as per the provisions of Section 166 (1) of the Act. It implies that a claim application for fixed compensation can be made before the concerned Claims Tribunal as per Section 166 of the Act. It implies that a claim application for fixed compensation can be made before the concerned Claims Tribunal as per Section 166 of the Act. It should be noted that Section 161 of the Act is a special provision created by the legislature. If the intendment of the legislature was that the claim petition for fixed compensation under the special provision also to be made under the provisions of Solatium Scheme, 1989, the legislature would have made it clear in Section 161 of the Act itself and consequently suitable provisions might have been made in Solatium Scheme, 1989 itself. But we do not find any provision in Solatium Scheme, 1989 to enable an applicant to file application for fixed compensation. Therefore, in my view an applicant can make application for fixed compensation under Section 161 of the Act before the concerned claims Tribunal. My view is fortified by the decisions cited by the appellant. In CRP No.687 of 2007 dated 20-07-2007 (4 supra) when the revision petitioner contended that for a claim under Section 161 of the Act the Tribunals constituted to decide the claims under Section 166 of the Act will not have jurisdiction, the learned Judge has held that the contention of the revision petitioner cannot be accepted in view of sub-section (4) of Section 161 of the Act. While extracting Section 161, the learned Judge held that in view of Section 161 (4) it is clear that there cannot be any embargo for the claimants to move the Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the Act to deal with the applications under sub-section (1) of Section 166. 9) In SAROJ AND OTHERS v. HET LAL AND OTHERS (3 supra)the facts are that claimant’s motor cycle was hit by Tata 2007 bearing Registration No.HR 38 L 6592. In the claim OP the driver contended that no such accident took place. The owner i.e. R2 while opposing the claim admitted that his vehicle was engaged in the accident. The Tribunal gave a finding that it was a case of hit and run motor accident caused by some unknown vehicle and the present vehicle was introduced to claim compensation. The High Court affirmed the view of the Tribunal. In the appeal the Honourable Supreme Court held that the courts below have completely erred in giving a finding that it was a hit and run case. The High Court affirmed the view of the Tribunal. In the appeal the Honourable Supreme Court held that the courts below have completely erred in giving a finding that it was a hit and run case. It also held that an admission in the pleadings of R2 itself is sufficient to hold that the vehicle concerned belonging to R2 was involved in the accident. The Honourable Supreme Court in that context made another observation which is relevant and the same is as follows: “ On considering the rival arguments, it must be said that the petition could not have been dismissed in totality. Presuming it to be a hit and run case, the appellants were entitled to at least Rs.25,000/- as per the provisions of Section 161(3)(a) of the Act.” Hence it is clear that Tribunal’s jurisdiction to entertain application under Section 161 (3) is not ousted. 10) Now coming to the two decisions relied on by the Tribunal i.e. SAROJA AND OTHERS v. GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS and NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. RAJENDRA PRASAD BHAT AND OTHERS) (1 and 2 supra), it must be said that in those decisions, the distinction between the claims under Section 161 and 163 of the Act was not considered. In those cases, though claims were made under Section 161 of the Act for fixed compensation, it was held that in view of Solatium Scheme, 1989 those claims were not maintainable before the Tribunal. I am in respectful disagreement with those decisions. 11) Coming to the decision reported in KONDA ANURADHA V. GOPIREDDY VENKAT REDDY (5 supra) relied on by the respondent, the point for determination in that case was not whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the claim under Section 161 (3) of the Act. As such the said decision will have no application to the present case. 12) In the result, in view of the above discussion, MACMA is allowed by setting aside the award dated 14-10-2008 in M.V.O.P.No.130 of 2008 and it is held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claim made before it. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to dispose of MVOP No.130 of 2008, as per law, within one month from the date of receipt of this order. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.