$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + FAO 842/2003 RAJESH TYAGI & ORS. ..... Appellants Through: Mr. A.J. Bhambani, Sr. Adv. as amicus curiae with Ms.Lakshita Sethi, Adv. Mr. Satyam Thareja, Adv. as amicus curiae. versus JAIBIR SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Kirtiman Singh, CGSC with Mr. Waize Ali Noor, Adv. for UOI. Mr. Rahul Mehra, Sr. Standing Counsel for GNCTD. Mr. D.K. Nag, Adv. for IIBI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA O R D E R % 15.07.2016 1. Mr. Rahul Mehra, learned senior standing counsel for Govt. of NCT of Delhi has handed over the status report of Delhi Police in terms of order dated 18th March, 2016. Relevant portion of the said report is reproduced hereunder: “2. It is respectfully submitted that a copy of order dated 18.03.2016 passed by this Hon’ble Court in the above cited matter was sent to the Deputy Commissioners of Police, all Districts, Railways & Metro, IGI Airport, Crime (CRO) I.T. and Traffic, Delhi/New Delhi vide this Hdqrs. Memo No.272/S/HC/09/1892- 1908/Court Cell/PHQ (DA-I) dated 04.04.2016 with the request to furnish their report whether the Accident Vehicle information Retrieval System (AVIRS) is functioning properly in their Districts/Units (Police Stations) and also submit comments/suggestions for improvement as well as details of any problem being faced by the Investigating Officers in the functioning of the Accident Vehicle Information Retrieval System by 01.07.2016. 3. The reports received in this regard indicate that: (i) On opening the online link of I.I.B. i.e. https:/iib.gov.in, the Accident Vehicle Information Retrieval System shows that the search facility is limited upto a maximum of three times for a particular mobile number or Email ID. This type of limitation is bound to adversely affect the work of Investigating Officer and it needs to be amended in order to facilitate multiple use by using the same mobile number or Email ID. (ii) The Accident Vehicle Information Retrieval System should be improved as under:- a. The website is slow and cumbersome to use and should be made more user friendly. b. The website/database should be updated on a regular basis for its meaningful utility.” 2. This Court is of the view that the appropriate action be taken by IIB to resolve the issues raised by the Delhi Police in their report within a period of five weeks from today. If need be, learned senior standing counsel for Delhi Police and Mr. D.K. Nag, learned counsel for IIB should convene a meeting between their competent officers before the next date of hearing. 3. Mr. D.K. Nag, learned counsel for IIB seeks time to take instructions. 4. Mr. Kirtiman Singh, learned standing counsel for Central Government seeks some more time to place on record the copy of the draft bill prepared by the Central Government. 5. Vide order dated 12th December, 2014, this Court had modified the Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure which has been circulated to all the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in Delhi. 6. Mr. Anup J. Bhambhani and Mr. Satyam Thareja, learned amici curiae submit that a compliance report be called for from all the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals. 7. All the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals are directed to send the report with respect to the compliance of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure, hereinafter referred to as “MCTAP” for the period 1st May, 2015 to 31st May, 2016, specifying the following details for the aforesaid period:- CASES ARISING FROM DAR Compliance by Police Officials (i) Number of road accidents reported by Police to the Claims Tribunals in terms of Clause 2 of the MCTAP. (ii) Number of cases in which DAR (Detailed Accident Report) has been received from the Police within 30 days. (iii) Number of cases in which the DAR has been filed by the Police after expiry of 30 days. (iv) Number of cases in which DAR has not been received till date. (v) Whether the investigating officer has produced the driver, owner, claimant and eye witnesses before the Claims Tribunal along with the DAR. Compliance by Insurance Companies (i) Number of cases in which the insurance companies have submitted their offer of settlement in Form III within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the DAR. (ii) Number of cases in which the insurance companies have submitted their offer of settlement in Form III after the expiry of 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the DAR. (iii) Number of cases in which the insurance companies have not submitted their offer of settlement in Form III till date. Compliance by Tribunals (i) Number of cases in which the consent award has been passed within 30 days from the receipt of the response from the insurance companies. (ii) Number of cases in which amount offered by the Insurance companies was not acceptable to the claimant, and, therefore, a reasoned award was passed. (iii) Number of cases in which the claimants have been examined before the passing of the award in terms of Clause 26 of MCTAP. (iv) Number of cases in which the award amount has been deposited within 30 days of the award in terms of Clause 27 of MCTAP. (v) Number of cases in which the award amount has been disbursed to the claimants in a phased manner in terms of Clause 28 of MCTAP. (vi) Number of cases in which Form IV is incorporated in the award in terms of Clause 29 of MCTAP. (vii) Number of cases in which the cases have been kept for compliance after the passing of the award in terms of Clause 30 of MCTAP. (viii) Number of cases in which the DAR and the copy of the award have been sent to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate in terms of Clause 31 of MCTAP. (ix) Number of cases in which the format of the record of the awards have been maintained in Form-V in terms of Clause 33 of MCTAP. CASES OTHER THAN DARs (i) Number of cases instituted other than through DARs. (ii) Number of such cases disposed of. (iii) Number of cases in which the claimants have been examined before the passing of the award in terms of Clause 26 of MCTAP. (iv) Number of cases in which the award amount has been deposited within 30 days of the award in terms of Clause 27 of MCTAP. (v) Number of cases in which the award amount has been disbursed to the claimants in a phased manner in terms of Clause 28 of MCTAP. (vi) Number of cases in which the Claims Tribunals have incorporated Form IV in the award in terms of Clause 29 of MCTAP. (vii) Number of cases in which the cases have been kept for compliance after the passing of the award in terms of Clause 30 of MCTAP. (viii) Number of cases in which the DAR and the copy of the award have been sent to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate in terms of Clause 31 of MCTAP. (ix) Number of cases in which the record of the awards have been maintained in Form-V in terms of Clause 33 of MCTAP. 8. The Claims Tribunals shall send their reports within three weeks. Along with the reports, each Claims Tribunal shall send the copies of five awards passed during the aforesaid period in which the provisions of the Modified Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure have been duly complied. 9. Copy of this order along with the order dated 12th December, 2014 be sent to all the District Judges who shall ensure the compliance of this order by all the Tribunals. The Claims Tribunals shall send their reports through their respective District Judges by 19th August, 2016. 10. List for considering the reports of the Claims Tribunals on 22nd August, 2016 at 2.30 pm. 11. Copy of this order be given dasti to counsels for the parties, learned counsel for IIB, Delhi Police and learned standing counsel for UOI as well as amici curiae under the signature of the Court Master. J.R. MIDHA, J. JULY 15, 2016 dk