Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 451 (JHR)

ICICI Lombard Generallnsur v. State of Jharkhand

2011-06-06

D.K.SINHA

body2011
Order The instant Criminal Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 13.9.2010 passed by Shri Gopal Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in G.R. No. 737 of 2007 by which prayer as made for the release of the seized Bolero vehicle bearing Chassis No. MAIXB82ACA42D34568, corresponding to Engine No. AC44C59967 was rejected. 2. The petitioner claims to be the authorized attorney and special power of attorney holder on behalf of ICICI Lombard General Company Ltd., a company incorporated in the Companies Act, 1956 and Insurance Company registered with Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority having its registered office at ICICI Tower, South Tower, Bandrakula Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-31. 3. M/s Excel Crop. Care Ltd., F-124-125, Transport Nagar, Lucknow was the registered owner of Bolero vehicle bearing the aforesaid Chassis number and Engine number and the vehicle was registered being the Registration No. U.P. 32BB 7819 in the State of U.P. and it was insured with the petitioner under policy No. 3001/1002784/001000. The Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. U.P. 32BB 7819 was stolen to which one Anil Prakash lodged an F.I.R. giving rise to Aliganj P.S. Case No. 34 of 2005 for the alleged offence under Section 379 I.P.C. against unknown and after investigation a final report was submitted, which was accepted by the A.C.J.M., 1st, Lucknow on 14.6.2005 as such criminal liability could not be fastened upon anyone for the alleged theft. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.2. M/s Excel Crop. Limited, F-124-125 i.e. the owner of the Bolero vehicle in question filed Claim Application before the petitioner herein, which was accepted .and a sum of Rs. 5,05,000/- (Five lakh five thousand) towards his claim was received by the owner of the vehicle i.e. O.P. NO.2 herein on his full and final satisfaction by executing indemnity-cum-declaration undertaking in favour of the petitioner-Insurance Company by extinguishing all his rights over the vehicle in question, if recovered in future and on the basis of such undertaking the vehicle in question which was recovered later on became the property of the Insurance Company. The indemnity cum-declaration undertaking dated 24.6.2005 executed by the owner of the vehicle i.e. the O.P. No.2 herein has been annexed with the petition (Annexure-2). The indemnity cum-declaration undertaking dated 24.6.2005 executed by the owner of the vehicle i.e. the O.P. No.2 herein has been annexed with the petition (Annexure-2). The Bolero vehicle was recovered on suspicious condition by the Bank More Police, Dhanbad to which a report was called for and the District Transport Officer, Koderma reported vide his Memo No. 1138 dated 21.4.2006 that the registration number which was found on the Bolero vehicle was not issued by the D.T.O., Koderma on the basis of which Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S. Case No. 179 of 2007 was registered for the alleged offence under Sections 467/468/471/420/414 of the Indian Penal Code on 8.3.2007, corresponding to G.R. No. 737 of 2007 as fake registration number was put on the vehicle being the registration number JH12A9739. Upon recovery of the vehicle the petitioner-Insurance Company filed an application for the release of the aforesaid Bolero vehicle in his favour which was rejected by the impugned order dated 13.9.2010 by Shri Gopal Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad. 4. Assailing the order impugned, learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Rajan Raj submits that a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the erstwhile owner of the vehicle, who has been impleaded as the O.P. No. 2 in this case who has admitted in his counter-affidavit, as contained in paragraph No. 10 that since the claim of the owner-O.P. No2 was settled by the Insurance Company to his satisfaction, he would have no objection if the vehicle in question could be released in favour of the petitioner-Insurance Company. Regarding relinquishment of its rights over the stolen vehicle, it is further admitted that the O.P No.2 has already executed an indemnity-cum-declaration undertaking on 24.6.2005 (Annexure-2 of the main petition) declaring that after satisfaction of full amount of claim to the tune of Rs. 5,05000/- (Five lakh five thousand) the apposite Party No. 2 extinguished all his rights and claim over the vehicle in question and now the vehicle became the property of the Insurance Company i.e. the petitioner herein. 5. Heard Mr. Hatim, learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State, who puts no objection on the given facts and circumstances of the case if the vehicle could be released in favour of the insurer-petitioner. 6. 5. Heard Mr. Hatim, learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State, who puts no objection on the given facts and circumstances of the case if the vehicle could be released in favour of the insurer-petitioner. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, upon perusal of the pleadings of the petitioner as well as the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the O.P. No.2, an erstwhile owner of the vehicle in question as also the annexures of the petitions, I find that the prayer of the petitioner-insurer reasonably requires consideration, without prejudice to the merit of the police case which was lodged vide Dhanbad (Bank More) P.S. Case No. 179 of 2007. The Bolero vehicle with its Registration No. UP32BB 7819, Chassis No. MAIXB82ACA42D34568 and Engine No. AC44C59967 is directed to be released in favour of the insurer-petitioner on executing indemnity bond of Rs. 5,50,000/- (Five lakh fifty thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Trial Magistrate with the conditions that the vehicle would not be alienated or transferred in any case without prior permission of the Trial Magistrate or until its final disposal. 7. This petition is allowed with the aforesaid observation.