Relook At Compensation In Hit & Run Cases; Avoid Closing FIRs For Non-Filing Final Reports Within Prescribed Time: Madras High Court Tells State

The Madras High Court recently directed the State government to re-look the scheme for payment of compensation to victims in hit-and-run cases. Noting that the compensation that was currently being awarded was terribly low compared to the compensation awarded to road accident victims under the Motor Vehicles Act, the court added that this prompted people to plant vehicles to claim higher compensation. “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,” the court said. Justice R Subramaniam and Justice N Senthil Kumar also noted that in some cases, the police connived with the victims of road accidents as the investigation relating to road traffic accidents was not done as seriously as in other crimes and thus resulted in slackness. To avoid these situations, the court also suggested the Director General of Police ensure that FIRs are not closed for non-filing of final reports within the time prescribed under Section 468 of CrPC thus requiring the police to file a final report in all cases. The court was hearing an appeal preferred by the family of a man who died as a result of an accident. Claiming that the lorry that was involved in the accident was driven in a rash and negligent manner, the claimants sought compensation of Rs. 27 Lakh apart from compensation for loss of love and affection, consortium, funeral expenses etc. The tribunal however rejected the claim observing that the claimants had not established fundamental facts as to the involvement of the lorry in the accident. The tribunal refused to rely on the FIR which was already closed by the Magistrate as time-barred. The tribunal suspected planting of the vehicle as the charge sheet which was not filed before the criminal court in time made its way to the tribunal. The High Court also entertained a similar doubt and observed that the final report which was prepared well within one year of registration of FIR was not filed before the criminal court on time but was filed before the tribunal. Looking into the language of Section 173(2) of CrPC, the court noted that the provision imposed a statutory obligation on the Police Officer to forward the final report to the concerned Magistrate. the court added that a failure to forward the final report is an acquittal granted by the police officer himself without reference to the court. Thus, the court added that such a final report which was not forwarded to the Magistrate had no value and could not be relied upon. Though the appellants contended that the evidence of the witnesses was sufficient to conclude that the lorry was involved in the accident, the court found the evidence not trustworthy. The court found contradictions in the witness's evidence which made it wholly unreliable. Looking into other documentary evidence, the court agreed with the findings of the tribunal and added that once it was found that the lorry was not involved in the accident, the Insurance company could not be directed to pay the compensation. Default In Filing Final Reports To avoid delays and defaults in filing final reports which in effect resulted in the acquittal of persons by the police officers, the court also deemed it fit to issue certain directions to the police department. To ensure that the final reports are filed within the time under Section 468 CrPC.To issue appropriate circulars to all Investigating Officers impressing upon them the need to file final reports on time.To ensure that appropriate disciplinary action is taken whenever there is a failure on the part of the officer to comply with the provisions within a stipulated time. Counsel for the Appellants: Mr.R.Thirugnanam Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.S.Arunkumar for R2 Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram, Advocate General assissted by Mr.Edwin Prabhakar Special Government Pleader for R3 Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 412 Case Title: A Vasanthi v S Jayakumar Case No: C.M.A.No.1960 of 2017Click here to read/download the judgment

Relook At Compensation In Hit & Run Cases; Avoid Closing FIRs For Non-Filing Final Reports Within Prescribed Time: Madras High Court Tells State

Upasana Sajeev

Tags