The Madras High Court today directed Assistant Commissioners of Police in cities and Deputy Superintendents of Police of traffic investigation detachment in Tamil Nadu to make periodic checks in furnishing copies of reports to Claims Tribunal once a month in view of the time stipulated in Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989.
A division bench, comprising Justices S Manikumar and G Chokkalingam, stated this when a civil miscellaneous appeal by Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, came up, challenging the amount of Rs 14.85 lakh awarded by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MCAT) to one Sathik Basha.
It examined an official memorandum issued by the DGP, instructing Station House Officers to submit copies of reports to Claims Tribunal within 30 days of registration of FIR and said the DGP should consider issuing suitable directions to prepare a database of accidents in all reports to be submitted by SHOs or Investigation Officers to Jurisdictional Tribunals.
Royal Sundaram claimed there was no credible evidence to prove the employment/earnings of the injured victim and that the multiplier method was wrong. They alleged that his driving license was renewed only two years after the accident (year not mentioned) and that Basha's claim of suffering loss of earning was not true.
They also alleged that Section 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act,1988, is not being complied with in Tamil Nadu and if these provisions was adhered to and relevant records obtained and submitted by police officers, there would be credible proof of such claims and dispute on the same could be avoided.
The section makes it obligatory for the police officer in charge to get records of the vehicle and claim of the victim and to forward a copy of the report within 30 days from the recording of information to the Claims Tribunal, with a copy to the insurance company.
Royal Sudaram submitted that despite an apex court order, the section was not being complied with in Tamil Nadu.
They submitted that false and fabricated motor accidents claims were the result of failure by police to not only ensure compliance with the mandatory provisions of MV Act, 1988, but basic failure to comply with the requirement under Section 158(6) of MV Act.
The company said the amount of Rs 14.85 lakh awarded by MCAT with interest and costs after assessing the disability at 85 per cent for grievous injuries was an 'exaggeration in assessment'. The same held true for employment of the victim and the salary fixed at Rs 12,000 per month.
Royal Sundaram contended there was no credible information of the victim's earnings and adopting of multipier method was wrong. Hence his claim was not true, they said and sought reduction of the award amount.
MCAT had directed the firm to pay Rs 10.08 lakh to Basha with interest, the total of which works out to Rs 14.85 lakh.
