Report No. 51

Compensation for Injuries Caused by Automobiles in Hit-and-Run Cases

Contents
1.	Introduction
2.	Dissatisfaction felt as to position regarding injury caused by automobiles
3.	Economic distress
4.	Directive Principle as to public assistance
5.	Compensation plans
6.	Categories of systems of compensation
7.	Category (a)(i)-Liability for tort at common law
8.	Category (a)(ii)-Compensation without fault
9.	Position under the English Bill of 1934
10.	Category (b)-Provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act
11.	Category (c)-Compensation by the State or by an agency set up or recognised by the State
12.	Category (d)-Compensation by the insurer of the victim
13.	Points raised in letter of Kerala Road Safety Association
14.	Driver not traceable
15.	Driver not licensed
16.	Five principal situations not covered at present
17.	Situation requiring urgent remedy
18.	Position in hit-and-run cases examined in detail
19 - 20	Statistics of motor accidents
21.	Comparative study
22 - 25	Position in England
26.	Position in New Zealand and New South Wales
27.	Position in France
28.	Position in Soviet Russia
29 - 32	Tort liability in Soviet Russia
33 - 35	Social insurance in Soviet Russia
36.	Summing up as to comparative survey
37.	Need for amendment
38.	Analysis of comments on the draft Report
39.	Comments in favour of the proposed amendment
40.	Comments in favour, but with modification of substance
41.	Comments in favour but with minor modification
42	Comments taking the view that the proposal should be more comprehensive
43.	Comments opposed on ground of priorities
44.	Comments opposed for financial reasons
45.	Comments suggesting even a wider amendment
46.	Conclusion on points raised in the comments
47.	Risk of abuse considered
48.	Amendment as to limited scope of the remedy considered
49.	Liability of the State Government
50.	Legislative competence
51.	Amount recoverable from the another person to be set-off
52.	Recommendation
53.	Difficulty of establishing negligence not within scope of the Report