ORDER : 1. This case was heard on 12.7.2018 and today is fixed for delivery of orders. 2. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. M. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel and Additional Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. S.R. Baruah, learned Government advocate, Assam, for the respondents. Also heard Mr. M.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Gauhati High Court. 3. By filing this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to respondent No. 2, i.e., Director General of Police, Assam, to re-investigate all the road accident cases pending in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in the State of Assam, which are being proceeded on the basis of General Diary (‘GD’) Entry. Further prayer made is for a direction to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals not to entertain any claim for compensation on the basis of General Diary (GD) Entry and to seek appropriate police investigation into the road accidents on the basis of which claims have been made. 4. Petitioner is the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., having its registered office at Mumbai with Branch office at Guwahati. Petitioner is engaged in the business of providing insurance coverage for motor accidents, etc. Basic grievance of the petitioner is that in the State of Assam, information relating to motor accidents are entered by the Police in the respective Police Stations in the General Diary (GD), where after, the GD Entry is forwarded to the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), on the basis of which the claims are registered. It is contended that forwarding of GD Entry to the Tribunals is not in conformity with the law. Besides, there is no corresponding police investigation into such cases of motor accidents. Therefore, it is contended that unless there is proper investigation leading to registration of FIRs no cognizance should be taken by the Tribunals. Only FIRs should be forwarded by the Police Stations to the Tribunals and not the GD Entries. Therefore, all the claim cases, which are now pending before the respective Tribunals on the basis of GD Entries should be investigated again by the Police and only after registration of FIRs, those claim petitions may be taken up. Only FIRs should be forwarded by the Police Stations to the Tribunals and not the GD Entries. Therefore, all the claim cases, which are now pending before the respective Tribunals on the basis of GD Entries should be investigated again by the Police and only after registration of FIRs, those claim petitions may be taken up. It is contended that such prayer is not only legitimate in view of the legal position governing the field but would also go a long way in weeding out fake claims. Petitioner is a trustee in-charge of public money and when the Tribunals award compensation to victims of motor accidents, compensation is paid out of public money. Therefore, it is important that necessary precaution should be taken and there should be proper investigation before such claims are entertained. 5. Notice in this case was issued on 30.8.2017. 6. Though no affidavit has been filed by the State, a short written statement has been filed by the learned Government advocate on behalf of the State. Response of the State is that in all the claim proceedings, the Insurance Company is invariably one of the parties. Insurance Companies prove the falsity of the claim if the claim is not genuine. Insurance Companies have ample opportunities under law to establish falsity of a claim, if it is indeed a false claim. If an Insurance Company has any grievance regarding non-performance of duty enjoined upon the Police Officer to register FIR and to conduct investigation, the same can be brought to the notice of the Tribunal. Under sections 168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (briefly, “the Act”, hereinafter), Tribunal has to hold inquiry into the claim made by the claimant, following summary procedure. The procedure has to be inquisitional and it is the duty of the Tribunal to ascertain the truth of the claim in order to render justice. Tribunal is not powerless to find out a false claim and, thereafter, to pass necessary orders. 7. Detailed submissions have been made by Mr. Sahewalla and Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the parties, which have been duly considered. 8. Sub-section (6) was inserted in section 158 of the Act by way of amendment in the year 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994. Tribunal is not powerless to find out a false claim and, thereafter, to pass necessary orders. 7. Detailed submissions have been made by Mr. Sahewalla and Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the parties, which have been duly considered. 8. Sub-section (6) was inserted in section 158 of the Act by way of amendment in the year 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994. As per sub-section (6), as soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this section is completed by a police officer, the officer in-charge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of first recording of information or, as the case may be, on completion of such report to the Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer, and where a copy is made available to the owner, he shall also within thirty days of receipt of such report, forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and Insurer. Section 158(6) of the Act reads as under: “(6) As soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this section is completed by a police officer, the officer in-charge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of recording of information or, as the case may be, on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer, and where a copy is made available to the owner, he shall also within thirty days of receipt of such report, forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and Insurer.” 8.1 Thus, this section makes it mandatory for an officer in-charge of the concerned police station to forward to the jurisdictional Tribunal within thirty days of receipt of information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person, the information so recorded or the report after completion of the same. 9. 9. Section 165 of the Act, provides for constitution of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, already referred to as Tribunal, for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. 10. Section 166 of the Act deals with application for compensation. Subsection (4) was inserted in section 166 by amendment in the year 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994. It says that a Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act. Section 166(4) of the Act provides as under: “(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 156 as an application for compensation under this Act.” 10.1 Rule 150 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, deals with furnishing of copies of reports to Claims Tribunals. It says that the police report referred to in sub-section (6) of section 158 shall be in Form 54. A registering authority or a police officer, who is required to furnish the required information to the person eligible to claim compensation under section 160, shall furnish the information in Form 54, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the request and on payment of a fee of rupees ten. 11. This rule was framed in 1989, whereas, the amendments were made in the Act in 1994. It appears that the legislative intent leading to insertion of sub-section (6) in section 158 and sub-section (4) in section 166 of the Act, is not reflected in rule 150 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. However, it is trite that provisions of a rule has to be read or interpreted in a manner so as to give effect to the provisions of the Act and not in derogation of the same. Reverting back to sections 158(6) and 166(4) of the Act, what is discernible is that an officer in-charge of a police station is mandated to forward the information regarding motor accident to the concerned Tribunal within 30 days of recording of such information or on completion of such report. Such report shall be treated as an application for compensation under section 166. Such report shall be treated as an application for compensation under section 166. This virtually nullifies the requirement of making request for furnishing of information to a person eligible to claim compensation under section 166 of the Act and for payment of fee as per rule 150 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, rendering such provision redundant. 12. In General Insurance Council v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2007) 12 SCC 354 , the General Insurance Council had approached the Supreme Court seeking a direction to the State Governments and to the Union Territories to ensure that the mandate of section 158(6) of the Act was complied with without exception. Supreme Court directed that all the State Governments and Union Territories should instruct all police officers concerned about the need to comply with the requirement of section 158(6) of the Act, keeping in view the requirement indicated iri rule 150 and in Form No. 54. Periodical checking should be done by the Inspector General of Police to ensure that the requirements were complied with. In case there was non-compliance, appropriate action should be taken against the erring officials. Relevant portion of the decision of the Supreme Court in General Insurance Council (supra) is extracted hereunder: “7. The language used in sub-section (6) of section 158 mandates the police officer to forward a copy of the report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and to the concerned insurance company “as soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury is recorded or a report under section 158 is completed by the police officer. 8. Use of the expression “as soon as” implies that there has to be promptitude in action. To do a thing “as soon as possible” means to do it within a reasonable time, with an understanding to do it within the shortest possible time. (Per Dysant, J in King's Old County Ltd. v. Liquid Carbonic Can. Corporation Ltd.) “As and when” and “as soon as” are almost synonymous. Whenever these expressions are used in respect of time and place, they denote contemporaneous notion. “As soon as” and “forthwith” both are to be normally understood as allowing reasonable time, but latter is more peremptory than the former. But urgency is the hallmark of both expressions. Expression “as soon as” may be stretched to mean “as soon as” practicable. It has to be forwarded with promptitude. 9. “As soon as” and “forthwith” both are to be normally understood as allowing reasonable time, but latter is more peremptory than the former. But urgency is the hallmark of both expressions. Expression “as soon as” may be stretched to mean “as soon as” practicable. It has to be forwarded with promptitude. 9. Since there is a mandatory requirement to act in the manner provided in section 158(6) there is no justifiable reason as to why the requirement is not being followed. 10. It is, therefore, directed that all the State Governments and the Union Territories shall instruct, if not already done, all police officers concerned about the need to comply with the requirement of section 158(6) keeping in view the requirement indicated in rule 150 and in Form 54. Periodical checking shall be done by the Inspector General of Police concerned to ensure that the requirements are being complied with. In case there is non-compliance, appropriate action shall be taken against the erring officials. The Department of Road Transport and Highways shall make periodical verification to ensure that action is being taken and in case of any deviation immediately bring the same to the notice of the concerned State Governments/Union Territories so that necessary action can be taken against the officials concerned.” 13. The above issue again came up before the Supreme Court in Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2010) 2 SCC 607 . Supreme Court referred to the provisions contained in sections 158(6) and 166(4) of the Act as well as the earlier decision in General Insurance Council (supra) and lamented that neither the police nor the Tribunals had made any effort to implement these mandatory provisions of the Act. It was observed that if these provisions are faithfully and effectively implemented, it would be possible for the victims of accident and/or their families to get compensation in a span of few months, therefore, it was held that there was an urgent need for the police authorities and the Tribunals to follow the mandate of these provisions. Supreme Court in that case issued a number of directions to the police authorities as well as to the Tribunals. Supreme Court in that case issued a number of directions to the police authorities as well as to the Tribunals. One of the directions issued to the police authorities was that accident information report (AIR) in Form No. 54 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, should be submitted by the police to the jurisdictional Tribunal, within 30 days of the registration of the FIR. While submitting the information in Form No. 54, police should also collect and furnish important particulars in the accident information report (AIR), such as, the age of the victims at the time of accident; income of the victim and the names and ages of the dependent family members. The accident information report (AIR) should be accompanied by attested copies of the FIR. Registrar Generals of the High Courts were directed to instruct all Claims Tribunals within the jurisdiction of each High Court to register the reports of accidents received under section 158(6) of the Act as applications for compensation under section 166(4) of the Act and to proceed with them without waiting for filing of claim applications by the injured or by the family of the deceased. It was further directed that the Tribunals should enquire and satisfy themselves that the accident information report (AIR) relates to a real accident and to ensure that there is no collusion and fabrication of accident. In this connection, Supreme Court referred to what it called the “police officer-advocate-doctor” nexus. 14. In Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 , Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that registration of FIR under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is mandatory, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence. In such a case, no preliminary enquiry is permissible and this provision must be strictly complied with. 15. Before we advert to the grievance of the petitioner, provisions of sections 168 and 169 of the Act may also be referred to. While section 168 deals with award of the Claims Tribunal, section 169 deals with procedure and powers of Claims Tribunals. A careful and conjoint reading of sections 168 and 169 of the Act would reveal that while adjudicating a claim for compensation, Tribunal is empowered to hold an inquiry into the claim made, which perforce includes the veracity of the claim and the truthfulness of the accident. A careful and conjoint reading of sections 168 and 169 of the Act would reveal that while adjudicating a claim for compensation, Tribunal is empowered to hold an inquiry into the claim made, which perforce includes the veracity of the claim and the truthfulness of the accident. While conducting such an inquiry, a Tribunal has all the powers of a civil court for recording evidence. 16. According to the petitioner, in several cases, police officials had made GD Entries of information relating to motor accident and forwarded those to the concerned Tribunals, which were, thereafter, treated as claim petition under section 166(4) of the Act. Highlighting such anomalies, petitioner had approached this court earlier by filing WP(C) No. 640 of 2014, which was disposed of by a Single Bench of this court vide order dated 10.3.2013 directing the respondents to follow the directions/guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Jai Prakash (supra) and to complete the investigation on road accident cases. However, notwithstanding such direction, there has been no implementation by the respondents, compelling the petitioner to approach the court again. 17. If the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Prakash (supra) is carefully examined, what comes to the fore is that the officer in-charge of the concerned police station is required to submit accident information report (AIR) in Form No. 54 to the jurisdictional Tribunal within 30 (thirty) days of the registration of the FIR. The General Diary (GD) Entry is only an entry in the General Diary maintained in a police station recording receipt of information. If the information pertains to cognizable offence, registration of FIR is mandatory. No preliminary inquiry is required for registration of FIR in such cases. It, however, does not mean that after registration of FIR, there is no power of the police to conduct investigation about the genuineness of the road accident. Direction of the Supreme Court is that after registration of the FIR the accident information report (AIR) has to be submitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal within 30 days. 18. It, however, does not mean that after registration of FIR, there is no power of the police to conduct investigation about the genuineness of the road accident. Direction of the Supreme Court is that after registration of the FIR the accident information report (AIR) has to be submitted to the jurisdictional Tribunal within 30 days. 18. Therefore, and having regard to the discussions made above, Director General of Police (DGP), Assam is directed to issue general instructions to all the police stations in the State of Assam to register FIRs after making GD Entry on receipt of information relating to road accidents, and, thereafter, submit accident information report (AIR) in Form No. 54 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to the jurisdictional Tribunal within 30 days of registration of FIR. 19. Insofar the claim cases already pending before the Tribunals, which have been registered on the basis of GD Entries, Court is of the view that having regard to the beneficial nature of the legislation, i.e., the Act, it would be wholly inequitable to direct remand of those claim petitions to the concerned police stations. As discussed above, under sections 168 and 169 of the Act, the Tribunal has got ample powers to verify the genuineness of the claims. That apart, insurance companies, like the petitioner in the present case, have also enough opportunities in such proceedings to point out before the Tribunals, in case there is any collusion or in case any false claim is made. It is the duty which is vested in the insurance companies and it is expected that having regard to the beneficial objective of the statute, insurance companies will discharge their duties in the true spirit of the Act, so that genuine claim petitions are not frustrated and are disposed of at the earliest, giving at least some solace to the victims of road accidents and family members of deceased. 20. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition is disposed of.