Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1381 (JHR)

Nirmal Nag S/o Birsa Nag v. State of Jharkhand

2022-12-08

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2022
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. This petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 06.07.2022, passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Cr. Revision No. 69 of 2022, whereby the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in M.C.A. No. 609 of 2022 (arising out of Dasamfall P.S. Case No. 22 of 2021) was confirmed and tractor bearing Registration No. JH-08F-8418 was not released in favour of the petitioner and the matter is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. 2. Mr. Birendra Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the tractor in question and he is having the entire documents. He submits that the said tractor is lying in open. He submits that the learned trial court and the revisional court has not allowed the application on the ground that no document in support of the insurance of the vehicle has been furnished by the petitioner. He submits that Rule 6 of Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 the vehicle can be released if the owner furnishes sufficient security to pay the compensation that might be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident. According to him, Rule 6 of Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 has not been considered by the learned trial court as well as by the learned revisional court. He submits that since the vehicle is commercial one and is lying in the open and no purpose will be served in keeping the said vehicle to lie in the open which will be deteriorated. 3. Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order as the learned revisional court and the learned trial court have rightly rejected the application and considering that the vehicle in question was not insured and the petitioner was not submitting valid security for that. 4. In reply, Mr. Birendra Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that now the vehicle in question has been insured by way of Annexure-4. 5. In light of the above submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, for correct appreciation of the case, Rule 6 of Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 is quoted herein-below: “6. 5. In light of the above submission of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, for correct appreciation of the case, Rule 6 of Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019 is quoted herein-below: “6. (1) No Court shall release a motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in death of bodily injury or damage to property, when such vehicle is not covered by the policy of insurance against 3 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 furnishes sufficient security to 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 circumstances 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.” 6. On perusal of the aforesaid Rule, it transpires that there is provision of release of the vehicle if the owner furnishes sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Court to pay compensation that may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at Bar that the petitioner is ready to deposit the sufficient security/bond to the satisfaction of the Court for compensation which may arise after award passed in pending case, if any. Moreover, the vehicle in question is lying in open field and it will be deteriorated. Reference may be made to the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 wherein Paras 17 and 18 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “17. Moreover, the vehicle in question is lying in open field and it will be deteriorated. Reference may be made to the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 10 SCC 283 wherein Paras 17 and 18 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. 18. In case where the vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the insurance company or by a third person, then such vehicle may be ordered to be auctioned by the court. If the said vehicle is insured with the insurance company then the insurance company be informed by the court to take possession of the vehicle which is not claimed by the owner or a third person. If the insurance company fails to take possession, the vehicles may be sold as per the direction of the court. The court would pass such order within a period of six months from the date of production of the said vehicle before the court. In any case, before handing over possession of such vehicles, appropriate photographs of the said vehicle should be taken and detailed panchnama should be prepared.” 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned order dated 06.07.2022, passed by learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Cr. Revision No. 69 of 2022 whereby the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in M.C.A. No. 609 of 2022 (arising out of Dasamfall P.S. Case No. 22 of 2021) was confirmed, is hereby quashed. Consequently, order dated 02.03.2022 passed in M.C.A. No. 609 of 2022 is also set-aside. The vehicle, in question shall be released in favour of the petitioner on his undertaking on the following terms and conditions: (i) The petitioner shall furnish an indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the court below. (ii) The petitioner shall also submit a bond stating that he will furnish the security to pay the compensation that might be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident. (ii) The petitioner shall also submit a bond stating that he will furnish the security to pay the compensation that might be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident. (iii) One of the surety must be a resident and owner of a commercial vehicle of District Ranchi (Jharkhand). (iv) That the petitioner shall not sale, mortgage or transfer the ownership of the vehicle on hire purchase agreement or mortgage or in any manner. (v) He shall not change or tamper with the identification of the vehicle in any manner. (vi) He shall produce the said vehicle as and when directed by the Trial Court. 9. The trial court is at liberty to impose any other terms and conditions which the trial court deems fit and proper. 10. Accordingly, Cr. M.P. No. 3521 of 2022 stands allowed and disposed of. 11. I.A. if any, also stands disposed of.