Justice Jitendra Kumar directs appellant to pay compensation as judgment/award by Additional District and Sessions Judge-VIII-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

In Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Patna vs. Rita Devi & Ors. (2025), Justice Jitendra Kumar of Patna High Court delivered a 11-page long judgement dated December 16, 2025 wherein it considered whether pick up van bearing registration No. BHR-1AS-2166 was involved in the Motor Accident resulting into death of the deceased/Asharfi Roy and the vehicle was insured by the Appellant/Insurance Company.

This miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act was preferred against the judgment/Award dated September 22, 2017, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge-VIII-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patna, in Claim Case No. 3349 of 2014, whereby Tribunal directed the Insurance Company, who is Appellant herein, to pay Rs.7,32,000/- to the claimants, who are Respondent Nos. 1 to 7, towards compensation with interest @7% per annum.

This Claim Case bearing No. 3349 of 2014 was filed against the driver, owner and Insurance Company of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. BHR-1AS-2166. The claimants are wife, mother, sons and daughters of the deceased/Ashrafi Rai.

As per the claim petition, the deceased/Asharfi Ray was coming to home from Barh in a tempo on 31.01.2014 along with his relatives. When the Tempo reached near village -Dahaur, one Pick Up Van bearing Registration No. BHR-1AS-2166, being driven rashly and negligently, hit the Tempo, resulting into grievous injury to Asharfi Ray, who died in course of the treatment. Subsequently, Barh P.S. Case No. 36 of 2014 was lodged against the driver of the Pick Up Van and after investigation, charge-sheet was also filed against the driver. At the time of the accident, the Pick Up Van was insured by Oriental Insurance Company, who is the Appellant. Despite notice, the driver and owner of the vehicle, who were O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 before the Tribunal, did not appear before the Tribunal and hence, they were proceeded ex-parte. However, the Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and filed its written statement contesting the claim petition of the claimants. However, Insurance Company did not denied that the offending vehicle in question, as claimed by the claimants, was insured by it. However, Insurance Company pleaded that the claimants had not valid cause of action, that the claim petition was barred by principle of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence, that the claim petition was bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary party, that the deceased himself was guilty and he was driving the said Tempo without having driving license, that the age, income and health condition of the deceased eas not admitted, that the claimed compensation was excessive, that the driver of the Pick Up Van was not having driving license and there was no valid permit to the Pick Up Van at the time of the accident and hence, it is the driver and owner of the Pick Up Van who are liable to pay the compensation.

The following issues were framed by Tribunal :

(i) Whether the claim petition was maintainable?

(ii) Whether Asharfi Ray died on 30.01.2014 on account of negligent driving of Pick Up Van bearing Registration No. BHR-1AS-2166?

(iii) What was the monthly income of the deceased?

(iv) Whether the Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation to the claimants?

(v) Whether the Insurance Company has right to recovery?

(vi) Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation?

Justice Kumar concluded:"20. As per pleadings of the Claimants/Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and their evidence, it clearly transpires that the deceased/Asharfi Roy was travelling in the Tempo along with his relatives, including C.W.-2, Dhiraj Kumar, which was hit by pick-up van bearing registration No. BHR-1AS-2166, coming from the opposite side which resulted into serious injury to Asharfi Roy who ultimately died in course of treatment."

He observed: "I also find that at the time of accident, the pick-up van was not bearing registration number. It appears that it had been just plying on the road coming out from the Show-Room after temporary Registration and Insurance of the vehicle. I also gind that as per pleadings and evidence of the Claimants on record, it is found that after accident, the pick-up van was intercepted by the local people and seized by the Police and FIR was lodged against driver of Pick Up Van without carrying any registration number. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the driver of the Pick Up Van.  As such, I find that the Claimants have discharged yheir onus to prove the involvement of the vehicle and the insurance of the same by the Insurance Company who is thr Appellant. Thereafter, it was for Insurance Company to rebut such evidence adduced on behalf of the Claimants, but Insurance Company did not even take such plea in the written statement in regard to the non-involvement of the vehicle and non-insurance of the vehicle by it, nor even Claimants’ witnesses have been cross-examined on this point by the Appellant/Insurance Company. In fact, the Appellant should have not only made pleadings to such effect, but even some official witnesses were required to be examined on such points, including even Police Officers, if required. But nothing of the sort has been done by the Insurance Company during trial before learned Tribunal. At this stage, raising new facts and circumstances can not be permitted." 

Justice Kumar observed:"Hence, I find that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment/award. 24. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed directing the Appellant to pay compensation amount in terms of the impugned judgment/award within two months, failing which, the Appellant/Insurance Company will be liable to pay penal interest @ 12%. The Statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the Sppellant be returned to the Appellant."

Registrar Generals of High Courts, Chief Secretaries and Police stations must ensure strict compliance with Section 173 of Cr.P.C: Supreme Court

On March 12, 2024, in Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand (2024), Supreme Court's bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal reiterated Court's order dated July 17, 2023, whereby DGPs for the States of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh were directed to submit their respective reports on the steps taken by them to ensure that chargesheets are being filed in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), 1973. This order was passed by Court's bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Trivedi.

The March 2024 order authored by Justice Trivedi records that in compliance with the earlier order, the affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar with regard to the steps taken/being taken by them for submitting the Chargesheets/Police Reports in accordance with law. In conclusion, the Court's order reads: "It is further directed that the officer in charge of the police stations in every State shall strictly comply with the afore-stated directions, and the non-compliance thereof shall be strictly viewed by the concerned courts in which the Police Reports are submitted. Copy of this order be sent to all the Chief Secretaries of the States/UTs as also to Registrar Generals of the High Courts for perusal and compliance."

The Court observed, "The Police Report submitted by the police under Section 173(2) being very important piece of document from the view point of the prosecution, the defence and the court, we deem it necessary to elaborately deal with the various aspects involved in the said provision. For the reasons stated hereinafter, we are of the opinion that it is incumbent on the part of the Investigating Officer to strictly comply with the requirements of the said provisions, as non-compliance thereof gives rise to many legal issues in the court of law." Section 173 deals with the report of police officer on completion of investigation. Section 173 (2) deals with required post investigation steps, the required eight details in the prescribed format of the police report which is supposed to be forwarded to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence, and communication by the police officer regarding action taken by him to the person by whom the information relating to the commission of offence was first given. As per Section 2(r) of Cr.P.C, “Police Report” means a report forwarded by a Police Officer to a Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 173.

Section 173 reads: “173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation. —(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay. [(1A) The investigation in relation to [an offence under sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB or 376E] from the date on which the information was recorded by the officer in charge of the police station.] (2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating—

(a) the names of the parties;
(b) the nature of the information;
(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;
(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.
(h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under [ sections 376,376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB] or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)].]
(ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him, to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.
(3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under section 158, the report shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation.
(4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit.
(5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report—
(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation;
(b) the statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.
(6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject-matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.
(7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub-section (5).
(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2)”.
10. The procedure for investigation has been laid down in Section 157 of Cr.P.C. which states inter alia that if from the information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender. Such report would be in the nature of preliminary report. As per Section 169, upon the completion of the investigation, if it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, as such officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, and to try the accused or commit him for trial. Section 170 deals with the cases to be sent to Magistrate when evidence is sufficient. The relevant part of Section 170(1) reads as under: -“170. Cases to be sent to Magistrate, when evidence is
sufficient.—(1) If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial, or, if the offence is bailable and the accused is able to give security, shall take security from him for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate until otherwise directed.” 

Section 172 pertains to the Diary of proceedings in investigation, which requires every police officer making an investigation under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. to enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary day by day. Sub-section (IA) of Section 172 requires that the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation under section 161 have to be inserted in the case diary; and sub-section (1B) of Section 172 requires that such diary shall be a volume and duly paginated. 

The Court observed that "though there are various reports required to be submitted by the police in charge of the police station before, during and after the investigation as contemplated in Chapter XII of Cr.P.C., it is only the report forwarded by the police officer to the Magistrate under sub-section (2) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. that can form the basis for the competent court for taking cognizance thereupon. A chargesheet is nothing but a final report of the police officer under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. It is an opinion or intimation of the investigating officer to the concerned court that on the material collected during the course of investigation, an offence appears to have been committed by the particular person or persons, or that no offence appears to have been committed.

It further observes, "When such a Police Report concludes that an offence appears to have been committed by a particular person or persons, the Magistrate has three options: 

(i) he may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process, 

(ii) he may direct further investigation under sub-section (3) of Section 156 and require the police to make a further report, or 

(iii) he may disagree with the report and discharge the accused or drop the proceedings. 

If such Police Report concludes that no offence appears to have been committed, the Magistrate again has three options: 

(i) he may accept the report and drop the proceedings, or (ii) he may disagree with the report and taking the view that there is sufficient ground for proceeding further, take cognizance of the offence and issue process, or 

(iii) he may direct further investigation to be made by the police under sub-section (3) of Section 156.

The Court referred to Satya Narain Musadi v. State of Bihar (1980), wherein, the Court observed that statutory requirement of the report under Section 173(2) would be complied with if various details prescribed therein are included in the report. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175(5). But in Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI (2007), it has been held that even if all the documents are not filed, by reason thereof the submission of the chargesheet itself would not be vitiated in law. It also cited Court's recent opinion in CBI v. Kapil Wadhwan (2024), wherein the Court observed "Once from the material produced along with the chargesheet, the court is satisfied about the commission of an offence and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) is pending or not. The pendency of the further investigation qua the other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of chargesheet would neither vitiate the chargesheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an incomplete chargesheet or that the chargesheet was not filed in terms of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C."

It emerges from the cited judgements of the Supreme Court that non-compliance with Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C does not vitiate the chargesheet. But Justice Trivedi infers the contrary. She says, "The above referred discussion has been necessitated for highlighting the significance of the compliance of requirements of the provisions contained in Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C."

Significantly, her order directs that "the Report of police officer on the completion of investigation shall contain the following: -
(i) A report in the form prescribed by the State Government stating-
(a) the names of the parties;
(b) the nature of the information;
(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;
(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.
(h) Whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under [sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB] or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)”
(ii) If upon the completion of investigation, there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, the Police officer in charge shall clearly state in the Report about the compliance of Section 169 Cr.PC.
(iii) When the report in respect of a case to which Section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report, all the documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation; and the statements recorded under Section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.
(iv) In case of further investigation, the Police officer in charge shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed and shall also comply with the details mentioned in the above sub para (i) to (iii).

Justice Trivedi has reversed the judgements in Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI (2007) and CBI v. Kapil Wadhwan (2024) in this regard. It is apparent from the judgement that strict compliance with Section 173 of Cr.P.C has been made mandatory.