Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Company Limited & Others). He has also submitted tha
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1555 of 2023 Manoj Kumar, aged about 33 years, son of Bajo Singh, resident of Village Orhara, P.O. & P.S. Bhatkund, District Banka, Bihar The State of Jharkhand Versus --- … … Petitioner … … Opp. Party CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Respondents 08/13th June 2024 --- ---
Legal Reasoning
he has gone through the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 4187 of 2023 and he has no objection if the seized vehicle is released but the petitioner may be directed to furnish indemnity bond with two solvent sureties of Rs. 2,00,000/- each with respect to the vehicle involved in the present case. He has also submitted that the petitioner should undertake to produce the vehicle as and when it is required to be produced before the learned court. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the petitioner is admittedly not an accused in the case and even as per the report of the police, they had no objection if the vehicle is released. The fact remains that the vehicle is not having an insurance coverage. 7. This Court finds that the aspect of the matter regarding vehicle having no insurance has been considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 4187 of 2023 decided on 03.04.2024 and the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also been taken into consideration. Paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the aforesaid order passed by this Court is quoted as under: - “8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jai Prakash Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Ors., reported in (2010) 2 SCC 607 para-41 of which reads as under:- “41. Where there is no insurance cover for a vehicle, the owner should be directed to offer security or deposit an amount, adequate to satisfy the award that may be ultimately passed, as a condition precedent for release of the seized vehicle involved in the accident. If such security or cash deposit is not made, within a period of three months, appropriate steps may be taken for disposal of the vehicle and hold the sale proceeds in deposit until the claim 2 case is disposed of. The appropriate Governments may consider incorporation of a rule on the lines of Rule 6 of the Delhi Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 in this behalf.” (Emphasis supplied) Has held that where there is no insurance cover for a vehicle seized by police for being involved in an accident, the owner should be directed to offer security or deposit an amount, adequate to satisfy the award that may be ultimately passed, as a condition precedent for release of the seized vehicle involved in the accident. 9. A plain reading of Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 which reads as under:- to furnishes sufficient security 6. Prohibition against release of motor vehicle involved in accident.- (1) No court shall release a motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in death or bodily injury or damage to property, when such vehicle is not covered by the policy of insurance against third party risks taken in the name of registered owner or when the registered owner fails to furnish copy of such insurance policy despite demand by investigating police officer, unless and until the registered owner the satisfaction of the court to pay compensation that may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident. (2) Where the motor vehicle is not covered by a policy of insurance against third party risks, or when registered owner of the motor vehicle fails to furnish copy of such policy in circumstance mentioned in sub-rule (1), the motor vehicle shall be sold off in public auction by the magistrate having jurisdiction over the area where accident occurred, on expiry of three months of the vehicle being taken in possession by the investigating police officer, and proceeds thereof shall be deposited with the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in question, within fifteen days for purpose of satisfying the compensation that may have been awarded, or may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident. (Emphasis supplied)
Arguments
: Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate Ms. Richa Lal, Advocate : Mr. Anup Pawan Topno, Advocate 1. 2. Learned counsel for the parties are present. This revision application is directed against the order dated 31.10.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dumka in connection with Hansdiha P.S. Case No. 48/2023 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 850 of 2023 whereby the petition for release of the seized vehicle bearing registration No. BR 51G 1337 in connection with the aforesaid case has been rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the seized vehicle and is not an accused in the case. He submits that the learned court has rejected the petition for release on the ground that the vehicle was not insured and has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) 2 SCC 607 (Jai Prakash vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Others). He has also submitted that the investigating officer of the case has also submitted his report and has specifically mentioned in the report at paragraph 7 that the police has no objection if the vehicle is released. The learned counsel submits that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned court and further Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rule, 2019 which came into force with effect from 23rd July 2019 has also not been considered. 1 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 4187 of 2023 dated 03.04.2024 wherein this Court has considered that in view of the aforesaid rules there is no total ban on release of seized vehicle which do not have insurance covered for 3rd party risk. It has envisaged as a condition precedent for release of seized vehicle upon deposit of security or cash deposit which may be equivalent to sale proceeds of the vehicle if sold. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that
Decision
It is crystal clear that the said Rule has not put a total ban on release of vehicle seized by police which has no insurance cover for a third party risk rather it has envisioned that as a condition precedent for release of seized vehicle involved in accident, such security or cash deposit is to be made by the owner of the vehicle within a period of three months and if within a period of three months, the owner of the vehicle fails to deposit the security/cash amount, appropriate steps may be taken for disposal of the vehicle and the sale proceeds be held in deposit until the claim case is disposed of.” 8. This Court finds that the learned court has failed to act in terms of Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 and has refused to release the vehicle on the ground that the petitioner had not submitted that the petitioner was ready to offer security or deposit an amount, adequate to satisfy the award that may be passed ultimately, as a condition for release of 3 the said vehicle. However, during the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has received instructions and the petitioner is ready to do the needful. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and the instructions now received by the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to do the needful, that is, the petitioner is ready to offer security or deposit any amount as a condition for release of the said vehicle this Court finds that the present case is squarely covered by the order passed by this Court in Cr. M.P. No. 4187 of 2023 and accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set-aside. 10. Consequently, the vehicle in question is allowed to be released in favour of the petitioner upon furnishing an indemnity bond equivalent to the present valuation of the vehicle as may be found suitable by the learned trial court or of Rs. 2,00,000/- whichever is higher with two solvent sureties undertaking to pay compensation to be awarded in any motor accident claim case arising out of the accident subject to verification of ownership of the petitioner with regard to the vehicle and a further condition that the petitioner shall also give his undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when required by the learned court or by the investigating officer of the case and any other condition that may be imposed by the learned trial Court including . 11. This criminal revision application is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. 12. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 4