IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a final report not filed within the statutory time frame has no evidentiary value, and the failure of police to comply with procedural requirements can lead to unjust acquittals in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

(R. Subramanian, J.)

(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.)

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.

2. The claim petition was resisted by the 2nd respondent/Insurer of the lorry contending that the vehicle insured with it namely, lorry bearing Registration No.TN-04-C-7396 was not involved in the accident at all. The 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. All that was stated was, a lorry carrying milk came in the opposite direction and dashed against Arulappan. The Insurance Company also relied upon the fact that no final report was filed pursuant to the First Information Report, which was marked as Ex.P1 and the Magistrate had closed the First Information Report as time barred under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The details of employment and the income were also denied. The quantum of compensation claimed was termed as excessive.

3. At trial, before the Tribunal, the 1st claimant/wife of Arulappan was examined as P.W.1 and four other witneses 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.

5. After hearing the parties for some time, we entertained a doubt as to how a final report/charge sheet which should have been filed before the Criminal Court under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was produced before the Tribunal after the criminal case was closed as barred by limitation under Section 468 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. It is evident that the final report has been prepared within a year from the date of the First Information Report but, the same has not been filed before the Criminal Court. The reasons for such non-filing are not forthcoming, we wanted to know the reasons for non-filing of the final report before the Criminal Court. We therefore, suo motu impleaded the Secretary, Home, Government of Tamil Nadu and required a report on t