The New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Satyanaryan

160. Duty to furnish particulars of vehicle involved in accident.—A registering authority or the officer-in-charge of a police station shall, if so required by a person who alleges that he is entitled to claim compensation in respect of an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, or if so required by an insurer against whom a claim has been made in respect of any motor vehicle, furnish to that person or to that insurer, as the case may be, on payment of the prescribed fee, any information at the disposal of the said authority or the said police officer relating to the identification marks and other particulars of the vehicle and the name and address of the person who was using the vehicle at the time of the accident or was injured by it and the property, if any, damaged in such form and within such time as the Central Government may prescribe.”

35. From the above, it is evident that on receiving the intimation of the accident and during investigation, the police officer is required to prepare the accident information report (AIR) and shall work as a facilitator in settlement of the claim in a manner as prescribed and furnish the information to the Claims Tribunal and other stakeholders, as specified. The police officer and registering authority are supposed to discharge their functions to facilitate and furnish the information on payment of prescribed fees to the person entitled for compensation or to insurer, against whom the claim has been made. They shall also facilitate to identify the vehicle, name and address of the person using the vehicle at the time of accident and also regarding a person injured or property involved, as prescribed.

36. The Central Government in its wisdom with an intent to carry out the purpose of the Act promulgated the Rules, known as the Motor Vehicle Amendment Rules, 2022.

37. As per the Rules, in the event of a road accident, the investigation must be started immediately on receipt of information by the police officer of the police station concerned. The investigating officer shall inspect site of accident, take photographs/videos of scene and vehicle involved, followed by preparation of site plan drawn to scale as to indicate the width of road(s) as the case may be and other relevant factors including the persons and vehicles involved in the accident. In a case of injury, the investigating officer shall take photographs of the injured in the hospital and shall conduct spot enquiry examining the eyewitnesses/bystanders. The intimation regarding the accident is required to be furnished by the investigating officer within 48 hours to the Claims Tribunal in the shape of first accident report (“FAR”) in Form I. It is further required to be sent to the Nodal Officer of the insurance company on having particulars of the insurance policy. The injured/victim(s), legal representative(s), State Legal Services Authority, insurer shall also be provided the copy of Form I and the same must be uploaded on the website of the State Police, if available.

38. It would be the duty of the investigating officer to inform the injured/victim(s)/legal representative(s) regarding their rights by supplying Form II attaching flow chart within 10 days specifying the scheme to seek remedial measure. It would be the duty of the investigating officer to ask the information in Form III and Form IV from the driver(s) and the owner(s) respectively within 30 days.

39. As per the new regime, on receiving the information, interim accident report (“IAR”) shall be submitted by the investigating officer to the Claims Tribunal within 50 days in Form V along with relevant documents. A copy of the said IAR shall be furnished to the insurance company of the motor vehicle(s) involved in the road accident, victim(s)/claimant(s), State Legal Services Authority, insurer and General Insurance Council. The investigating officer or the insurance company shall have right to verify the details of the driver and the owner by using the VAHAN App or shall take the help of Registering Authority. The investigating officer is duty-bound to take the relevant details from the victim(s) or the legal representative(s), as the case may be and furnish the details within 60 days in Form VI. Form VI-A is modulated to the minor children, who are in need of care and protection in terms of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. xxx xxx xxx xxx

41. The investigating officer shall within 90 days compile all relevant documents and material in the form of detailed accident report (“DAR”) in Form VII accompanying site plan Form VIII, mechanical inspection report Form IX, verification report Form X and the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC”). It would be the duty of the registering authority to verify the registration certificate, driving licence, fitness and permit in respect of the vehicle(s) involved in the accident and the same is required to be submitted within 15 days to the investigating officer to complete the IAR and DAR. The extension of timelimit to file IAR and DAR is only permissible where the investigating officer approaches the Claims Tribunal in cases where parties reside outside the jurisdiction of the court or where the driver's licence is issued outside the jurisdiction of the court or where the victim(s) have suffered grievous injuries and are undergoing continuous treatment.

42. Thus, the investigating officer shall furnish FAR within 48 hours, IAR within 50 days, complete the investigation within 60 days and file DAR within 90 days. Copy of DAR shall be furnished to the victim(s), owner(s)/driver(s) of the vehicle(s), the insurance company involved and the State Legal Services Authority including the Nodal Officer of the insurance company and the General Insurance Council.

43. On perusal of the above, it is clear that to carry out the purpose of the provisions of Sections 159 and 160 of the MV Amendment Act, the officer in charge of the police station and the registering authority are required to act upon in a manner as prescribed in the Rules within the period as specified, thereby on receiving the information of accident, the complete information regarding such accident is to be made available before the Claims Tribunal within the time-limit without delay. As per Rules, the failure to perform the duties by the police officer may entail severe consequences as envisaged under the provisions of the State Police Act.

44. Thus, legislative intent is clear that on reporting a road accident the investigating officer must complete all his action within time-frame and shall act as facilitator to the victim(s)/claimant(s), insurance company by furnishing all details in prescribed forms, thereby claimant(s) may get damages/compensation without delay.”

12. Section 166(4) of the MV Act, further provides that the Tribunal shall treat any report of accident forwarded to it under Section 159 of the MV Act as an application for compensation under this Act.

13. While relying on the Gohar Mohammed case, a Single Judge of the High Court of Madras has in the case of Malaravan v. Praveen Travels (P) Ltd. & Ors.3, held that onus of reporting the accident under the MV Act lies with the police, and it is the police who have to register an FIR after the accident. Further, it is the duty of police to prepare and submit the First Accident Report, Interim Accident Report and DAR which is to be submitted before the MACT, and all these reports have to be filed within fixed timelines as provided in law. It has been further held that the parliament in its wisdom has by provision of Section 166(4) of the MV Act has ensured that the hapless victims of motor accidents need not depend upon the stakeholders in court for the purpose of initiation of proceedings and by way of Section 166 (4) of the MV Act, the proceedings itself are initiated on the basis of the report filed by the Police. The relevant extract of Malaravan case is reproduced herein below:

2023 SCC OnLine Mad 5467 rendered a Judgment in Gohar Mohammed v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in S.L.P.(C). No. 32448 of 2018. A reading of this Judgment goes to show that the Police are no more playing a mere role of an Investigating Authority and stopping with mere parting of information. They are mandated by the Parliament to file reports with the Claims Tribunal, which should treat the same as a claim petition. The claimants have been freed from the shackles and are no more burdened to search for the documents necessary for filing a claim. The duty to report is now the police and the duty to process the said information given by the police and uploaded on to the website lies on the Tribunal. When access is given to the Tribunal to an FIR and the other details which have been uploaded by the police the claimant need not be made to run around or suffer from a fear that his petition is barred by time. It is the duty of the Claims Tribunal to access the information available to it and process the claim and give succour to the victims. It is not an advisorial system as was practiced before 01.04.2022 other parts of India (before 12.09.1979 in Tamil Nadu) but today it is a people oriented justice delivery Tribunal. xxx xxx xxx

25. A perusal of the rules, the Judgment of the Supreme Court and the timeline which has been set forth above would clearly show that, the claim petition need not be commenced only by way of presentation of the petition under Section 166. This is clear from Section 166(4) which states that a report filed by the police to the concerned Authorities including the stakeholders, Insurance Companies and the jurisdictional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal should be treated as the Claim Petition. xxx xxx xxx

28. The Parliament in its wisdom has ensured that the hapless victims of motor accidents need not depend upon stakeholders in Court for the purpose of initiation of proceedings. The proceeding itself is initiated on the basis of the report filed by the Police Authorities. In effect, the petition under Section 166 is only a reminder to the Court that the police have already filed the Detailed Accident Report containing all the requisite details like the First Information Report, Interim Accident Report, First Accident Report and therefore, it has to take up the said report as a claim petition. In other words, the claim petition is only a reminder to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to perform its duty under Rule 21 Annexure XIII of Central Motor Vehicles Rules and to process the claim petition.” [Emphasis supplied] 13.[1] It was further held by the Court that the issue of six months limitation will arise only in case where no FIR has been registered by the Police and no report has been sent/uploaded and reading of Section 166(4) of the MV Act provides that any report of the accident which is forwarded under Section 159 of the MV Act shall be treated as an application for compensation. The relevant extract of the Malaravan case is below: "29. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that in cases where any request is filed and accessible by the Tribunal, then there will be no question of six months limitation arising. The issue of six months limitation will arise only in case where no FIR has been registered by the Police and no report has been sent/uploaded.

30. The members of the Bar represented that the Police are not sending the report and hence, there arises a problem.

31. A reading of Section 166(4) shows that if any report of the accident is forwarded to it under Section 159, the same shall be treated as an application for compensation. It is no more the discretion of the police. Rule 4(A)(5)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Rules read with the Central rules make it mandatory. It has now become a statutory duty of the Police to sent a report. It is pertinent to point out that the amendment under Section 166(4) does not speak about the Interim Accident Report (IAR), First Accident Report (FAR) and Detailed Accident Report (DAR) but speaks about “any report that has been sent by the police”. Therefore, even if an FIR sent by the police to the Tribunal, the same should be treated a Claim Petition.

32. The upshot of the discussion is that on registration of an FIR, a claimant is entitled to present the petition without the fear of it being thrown out, on the ground of limitation. This would be the correct reading of the present legal dispensation in all cases where FIR is registered within six months, of the date of any motor accident which takes place after 01.04.2022.”

14. Undisputably, the onus is upon the Police to file the DAR before the learned Tribunal within the prescribed time period and to strictly adhere to the timelines provided by the law. The police not only plays role of an investigating authority but also has other statutory responsibilities as mentioned above. The Supreme Court in the Gohar Mohammed case has further directed that upon failure to perform the duties by the Police, the police officer may entail severe consequences as envisaged under the provisions of the State Police Act. Thus, the claimant need not be made to suffer the burden of the claim being barred by time if the authorities are at fault for the delay caused.

15. The Supreme Court in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director Dr. K.M. Cherian and Ors.4, has held that the crucial date for determining limitation is either the date on which the complaint is filed or the prosecution is instituted and construing Section 468 CrPC in a way that disregards the date of filing, and instead depending solely on when the Magistrate takes cognizance, would lead to unconstitutional outcomes. It has been emphasized in the Sarah Mathew case that a complainant should not be deprived of justice merely due to delays on the part of the Court/Authority in acting upon the complaint. The relevant extract of the Sarah Mathew case is reproduced below:

is caused by the Magistrate by not taking cognizance in time, it is absurd to expect the complainant to make an application for condonation of delay. The complainant surely cannot explain that delay. Then in such a situation, the question is whether the Magistrate has to issue notice to the accused, explain to the accused the reason why delay was caused and then hear the accused and decide whether to condone the delay or not. This would also mean that the Magistrate can decide whether to condone delay or not, caused by him. Such a situation will be anomalous and such a procedure is not known to law. Mr Luthra, learned ASG submitted that use of disjunctive “or” in Section 473 CrPC suggests that for the first part i.e. to find out whether the delay has been explained or not, notice will have to be issued to the accused and for the latter part i.e. to decide whether it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice, no notice will have to be issued. This question has not directly arisen before us. Therefore, we do not want to express any opinion whether for the purpose of notice, Section 473 CrPC has to be bifurcated or not. But, we do find this situation absurd. It is absurd to hold that the court should issue notice to the accused for condonation of delay, explain the delay caused at its end and then pass an order condoning or not condoning the delay. The law cannot be reduced to such absurdity. Therefore, the only harmonious construction which can be placed on Sections 468, 469 and 470 CrPC is that the Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence only if the complaint in respect of it is filed within the prescribed limitation period. He would, however, be entitled to exclude such time as is legally excludable.”

16. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Priyanka Tanwar[5] while dealing with similar facts and circumstances wherein the DAR was filed belatedly has held that irrespective of the fact that the DAR was filed belatedly, the claimant cannot be non-suited for fault of the authorities on whose actions the claim petition proceeds before the tribunal. The relevant extract of The New India Assurance Co. case is below:

Order dated 12.03.2025 in CM(M)3796 of 2024 petitions proceeds before the Tribunal.”

17. At present, the constitutional validity of Section 166(3) of MV Act is a subject matter of challenge before the Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Dash v. Union of India.[6] On 15.01.2025 in the Bhagirathi Dash case, learned counsel for the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways submitted that the amendment which is under challenge, is proposed to be further amended. Clearly, this submission before the Supreme Court indicates a recognition of the potential infirmities in the present formulation of Section 166(3).

18. It is no longer res integra that the MV Act is a beneficial legislation which is intended to place the claimant in the same position as that of before the accident. The Supreme Court in the case of N. Jayasree & Ors. v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd[7]., has held that MV Act is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the object of providing relief to the victims or their families and thus the provisions of MV Act warrant liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying the enactment and to fulfil the legislative intent. The relevant extract of the

xxx xxx W.P. (C) No. 166 of 2024.

16. In our view, the term “legal representative” should be given a wider interpretation for the purpose of Chapter XII of the MV Act and it should not be confined only to mean the spouse, parents and children of the deceased. As noticed above, the MV Act is a benevolent legislation enacted for the object of providing monetary relief to the victims or their families. Therefore, the MV Act calls for a liberal and wider interpretation to serve the real purpose underlying the enactment and fulfil its legislative intent. We are also of the view that in order to maintain a claim petition, it is sufficient for the claimant to establish his loss of dependency. Section 166 of the MV Act makes it clear that every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person in a motor vehicle accident should have a remedy for realisation of compensation." 18.[1] The object of the MV Act is to ensure that no genuine claimant is deprived of compensation on account of procedural delays or lapses by the authorities. Upon such delay made by the authorities, the rigours of limitation cannot be pressed to defeat the rights of the claimant, especially when such delay is not attributable to the claimant. To further this objective, “any report that has been sent by the police” can be treated as a claim petition under Section 166(4) of the MV Act. Such report, whether it be a First Information Report, First Accident Report, Interim Accident Report, or Detailed Accident Report, can be treated as a claim petition by Tribunal. There is no statutory mandate in the MV Act that such a report must be a DAR alone. Hence, even if an FIR is sent by the police to the Tribunal, it would suffice to treat it as a claim petition.

19. This Court has perused the FIR dated 26.03.2023, which was registered pursuant to a complaint filed by the Respondent's son [hereinafter referred to as "Complainant"]. It states that the Respondent/injured was travelling in his car bearing no. DL 11 CA 7275 along with his family members and was going to Jhandewalan Temple on 26.03.2023. When the Complainant drove past the metro station at Kanhaiya Nagar, the driver of another car bearing no. DL 1 MA 5937, one Mr. Sunny, while driving in a rash and negligent manner took a turn towards Ashok Vihar and collided with the Complainant's car. The Respondent was sitting beside the Complainant in the front seat of the car and both suffered injuries. Injuries were also suffered by the mother and cousin sister of the Complainant who were sitting in the back seat of the car. 19.[1] The FIR further states that after the accident, a PCR vehicle on patrol of the Delhi Police arrived at the scene and then apprehended the driver of the other vehicle and took the Respondent and his family members to the hospital. The FIR further states that a copy of the FIR was handed over to ASI Vikas Kumar for further action. 19.[2] Thus, clearly the requisite steps were taken on the very day of the accident. However, the DAR was filed by the IO named above, on 07.03.2024, almost a year later.

20. As stated above, sub-section (4) of Section 166 of the MV Act provides that the Tribunal shall treat any report of the accident forwarded to it under Section 159 of the MV Act as an Application for compensation under the Act. Section 159 of the MV Act states that a police officer shall, during the investigation, prepare the accident report to facilitate the settlement of the claim. It is apposite to set out Section 159 of the MV Act below: "159. Information to be given regarding accident.—The police officer shall, during the investigation, prepare an accident information report to facilitate the settlement of claim in such form and manner, within three months and containing such particulars and submit the same to the Claims Tribunal and such other agency as may be prescribed." 20.[1] This provision and the obligations of the police authorities have been extensively discussed by the Supreme Court in Gohar Mohammed case, which is set out in paragraph 11.[1] above.

21. In the circumstances of the case, given that the complaint was registered on the date of the accident and the FIR was also registered on the same day by the police, there was no delay by the Respondent in taking steps. The delay was, however, caused by the police/IO in sending the DAR to the Court. For a case of compensation under the MV Act, the claimant cannot be deprived of justice due to the delay of police authorities, since this would defeat the very purpose of the MV Act. 21.[1] There can be no doubt that the intent of the MV Act including its amendment is benevolent to provide compensation to the victim. It is thus apposite to interpret sub-section (4) of Section 166 of the MV Act to treat the FIR as the report under Section 159 of the MV Act. Given the registration of the FIR on 26.03.2023, this Court directs that the tribunal shall continue to adjudicate the claim of the Respondent.

22. The Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. It is however clarified that this Court has not examined the matter on merits and the rights and contentions of both the parties are left open to be agitated before the learned Tribunal.