MANOJ KR. v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & Ors

26.12.2000 has submitted that the view taken by the D.C/D.M. is contrary to the law as laid down by a judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of ‘Ram Narayan Singh Vs. The election Commission & Ors’, reported in 1996 (1) P.L.J.R 621, wherein it has been laid down that the compensation for accident of a vehicle being used for election duty has not to be paid by the Insurance Company but by the user, i.e, the State. He, accordingly, submits that the reasons which have been assigned in the impugned order run contrary to the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ram Narayan Singh (supra) and the view taken that the petitioner should have approached the Insurance Company for payment of such compensation wholly unsustainable specially when in the order of the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) dated 20.9.2000 it was clearly mentioned that the Insurance Company had already rejected claim of the petitioner on that very ground on 12.11.1998.

5 Counsel petitioner, therefore, would pray that even today this matter can be agitated by the petitioner before this Court for issuance of a direction for payment of compensation by the D.C/D.M. Banka. On the other hand, counsel for the State representing the D.C/D.M. Banka submits that this writ application is fit to be dismissed on the ground of non- joinder of Election Commission of India as party, in as much as, the vehicle of in question was used for Lok Sabha election therefore impleadment State Election Commission was of no avail. This Court however must notice this objection only for its being rejected. It is not in doubt that the Collector has passed order the impugned. The vehicle was seized under his authority as Returning Officer and if at all any payment is to be made, the said amount has to be gathered from the funds allocated by the Election Commission of India. In that view of the matter the Election Commission of India at best can be proper party but not the 6 necessary party and as such this writ application cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of party.

Coming to the merits of this case, this Court would find that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of Full Bench in the case of Ram Narayan Singh (Supra). That being so, this Court would set aside the impugned order and directs the D.C/D.M. to apply his mind afresh after looking into the ratio of the aforementioned judgment of Ram Narayan Singh (Supra) and in case it is found that the vehicle in question had met an accident in course of election duty and had sustained damages as being claimed, he would after collecting the report made by the surveyor from the Insurance Company proceed to finalize the claim and make a requisition for the amount which he finds the petitioner to be entitled for such payment. On such requisition the Election Commission of India will be under bounden duty to release the same. It is, however, made clear that such claim of the petitioner will be 7 confined only to the damages caused to the vehicle and in the event the petitioner is interested for claiming any damages in his business, he will have to seek remedy before the appropriate Civil Court. It is, however, made clear that whatever amount for the damages of the vehicle is ascertained and fixed by the Collector the same shall be payable along with interest at the rate of 8% from

16.12.1998 till the date of actual payment as directed in the earlier order of Ranchi Bench, Patna High Court in the order dated

20.9.2000 in C.W.J.C. No. 3582 of 1998 (R). The aforesaid direction must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and actual payment, if any, found admissible to the petitioner must be made in the aforementioned period. With aforementioned observations/directions this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar