Prayer
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree dated 15.02.2017 made in MACTOP.No.2597 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
Fact of the case
This appeal is at the instance of the claimants, who had sought for compensation for the death of one K. Arulappan in a motor accident that occurred on 26.02.2009 at about 11.30 hours, while the said Arulappan was walking near rear gate of the Madhavaram Milk Dairy was hit by a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-04-C-7396, which came in the opposite direction. Claiming that the lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and the accident was the result of the said negligence of the driver, the claimants sought for a compensation of Rs. 27,00,000/-. The quantum was sought to be supported by the plea that the deceased was working in the Madhavaram Dairy and was earning Rs. 18,000/- per month. Compensation for loss of love and affection, consortium, funeral expenses etc., was also claimed.
3. At trial, before the Tribunal, the 1st claimant / wife of Arulappan was examined as P.W.1 and four other witnesses were examined as P.W.2 to P.W.5. One S. Elango, who was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Transport Investigation Wing, Chintadripet, Chennai was examined as P.W.2. One K. Vimala, P.W.2, was examined as an eye-witness and one G.D.N. Chandran was examined as P.W.4. Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. The copy of the unfiled charge sheet was marked as Ex. P11. On the side of the 2nd respondent / Insurance Company G. Ramamurthy, the driver of the lorry was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R5 were marked.
4. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence found that the claimants have not established the fundamental fact as to the involvement of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-04-C-7396 in the accident. The Tribunal refused to go by the First Information Report and the charge sheet, since it suspected planting of the vehicle. The basis of the suspicion of the Tribunal was that the charge sheet, which was not filed into Criminal Court in time made its way to the Tribunal through the claimants. On the finding that the vehicle was not involved in the accident, the Tribunal dismissed the claim in toto. Hence, this appeal.
Non – Filing of final report
Insurance company pointed out that the First Information report filed on the date of the accident did not disclose the vehicle that was involved in the accident. No final report was filed pursuant to the First Information Report, and the Magistrate had closed the First Information Report as time barred under section 468. Doubt entertained by court as to how a final report/ charge sheet which should have been filed before the criminal court was produced before the Tribunal after the criminal case was closed as barred by limitation under section 468.
A final report which is prepared and not forwarded to a Magistrate has no value and the same cannot be relied upon, as evidence, in any other proceeding. Mere non-filing of the final report is a dereliction of duty on the part of the police officer in- charge of the investigation of the crimes.
Mere non filing and closing of final reports under section 468 Cr.P.C is an acquittal of an offender by the police themselves without reference to the court
20. As already pointed out that Section 173 of Cr.P.C., imposed a statutory obligation on the part of the Police Officer to file a final report within the time prescribed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. In our considered opinion, mere non-filing of the final report is a dereliction of duty on the part of the Police Officer in-charge of the investigation of the crimes. We are compelled to observe that a result of non-filing of final reports within time and closing a First Information Reports under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., is an acquittal of an offender, who is alleged to have committed a cognizable offences under the Indian Penal Code by a Police Officer has not been realized by the Inspector General of Police, Traffic, Greater Chennai, who has filed the first status report dated 03.08.2023. When an omission on the part of Police Officer results in such a serious consequence, we expect the authorities to be more serious or more vigilant in ensuring that such acquittals by Police Officers do not recur. The additional status report also is not very helpful.
Direction to Police officer
22. In order to arrest, recurrence of default in filing final reports, which have the effect of acquittals being granted by the Police Officers, we deem it fit to issue the following directions to the Police Department: –
i) To ensure that final reports are filed within time contemplated under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., 1973.
ii) To issue appropriate circular to all the Investigating Officers, impressing them upon the need for filing the final reports in time.
iii) To ensure that appropriate disciplinary action is taken in cases where, there is a failure on the part of the Officer to comply with the provisions of Section 173(2)(i) within the time limit stipulated under Section 468 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Inadequacy of compensation
23. We find, in the recent past, there is a considerable spike in the number cases where, vehicles are planted in accidents by the Police in connivance with the victims of road accidents. This is mainly because the investigation relating to road traffic accidents are not done as seriously as in other crimes and there is considerable slackness or we can even say negligence on the part of the Traffic Investigating Wing of the Police Department. Another factor which leads to this planting of vehicles is inadequacy of the compensation provided by the State in case of hit and run accidents.
24. Compared to the compensation that is awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act to victims of road accidents where, the offending vehicle is identified without any difficulty, the compensation awarded by the State for hit and run accident is terribly low. We earnestly commend the state to have a re-look into the scheme for payment of compensation for victims of hit and run accidents. It would by and large, ensure that the planting of vehicles does not happen.
Conclusion
25. We direct the Director General of Police to ensure that the closure of First Information Report for non-filing of final reports within the time prescribed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., is fully avoided, which would mean that the Police would be required to file a final report within the time granted under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., in all cases. This Court has enabled online filing of final reports also only to felicitate the compliance with the provisions of Section 173 and 468 of Cr.P.C. We are sure that the State will endeavour to ensure that these kinds of cases do not recur.
27. In fine, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, confirming the award of the Tribunal. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Party
1. A.Vasanthi 2.A.Suganya 3.A.Sunil Kumar @ Anil Kumar …Appellants Vs. 1.S.Jayakumar etc,…Respondents – C.M.A.No.1960 of 2017 – December 15,2023.
