2020 (11) TMI 1133 - HC - Indian Laws

Release of vehicle involved in accident barred without valid third party insurance; genuineness must be verified before any release.

Rule-based requirement that motor vehicles involved in accidents causing death, bodily injury or property damage must have valid third party insurance in ... Rejection of petition filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of the Scooty - scooty of the petitioner was seized in connection with an accident case causing injury to a third party - rejection of petition u/s 457 of Cr.P.C. as the said scooty was having no third party risk coverage insurance on the date of the alleged vehicular accident - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of Rule-6 of the Odisha Motor Vehicles (Accidents Clams Tribunal) Rules, 2018, would go to show that unless the vehicle involved in the accident resulting in death or bodily injuries or damage to the property having insurance against third party risk taken in the name of the registered owner of the vehicle on the date of accident, the same cannot be released by the officer effecting seizure or even the Court cannot release without sufficient security furnished to satisfy the compensation to be paid to the claimant. In this case, admittedly, there being no insurance against third party risk on the date of accident of the scooty in question which has caused injury to a third party, the impugned order, therefore, refusing to release the scooty in favour of the petitioner, even if insurance against third party risk was obtained later, suffers from no illegality or infirmity and, as such, warrants no interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. As such, this revision petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. However, while parting with this case, this Court cannot refrain itself from observing the fact that on production of spurious insurance policy, some of the owners are managing release of the vehicles from the Police Station concerned as well as the Court at times even if the vehicle in such accident has caused injury/death and/or damage to third party property. Therefore, if the Investigating Officer concerned released the vehicle involved in accident cases, he must certify in the zimmanama that he has verified the genuineness and validity of such insurance certificate carrying third party risk before release of the vehicle in favour of the owner and mention the details of the insurer besides attaching the photocopy of such policy duly attested by him in the record - The Court also before releasing such vehicle must also get satisfied about the genuineness of such third party insurance of the vehicle involved in accident before release by verifying the same from the portal of the Insurance Company concerned available in the website. A copy of this order be communicated to the all the District and Sessions Judges throughout the State for its circulation among the Judicial Officers under their control. So also, a copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police for his information and necessary action in this regard. Issues: Whether a motor vehicle involved in an accident causing bodily injury can be released to the owner under Section 457 Cr.P.C. when the vehicle did not have third-party risk insurance on the date of the accident.Analysis: Rule 6 of the Odisha Motor Vehicles (Accidents Clams Tribunal) Rules, 2018 prohibits release of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in death or bodily injury unless the vehicle was covered by a third-party risk insurance policy in the name of the registered owner on the date of the accident or the registered owner furnishes sufficient security to satisfy potential compensation. Where there is no such insurance on the date of the accident, the rule also prescribes sale by public auction after three months and deposit of proceeds for satisfying compensation awards. The impugned order declined release because no third-party risk insurance existed on the date of the accident; an insurance obtained subsequently does not validate release without compliance with the rule's requirements. The judgment also addresses procedural safeguards for verification of insurance genuineness and potential disciplinary measures for officials releasing vehicles on the basis of spurious policies.Conclusion: The refusal to release the scooty is upheld and the revision petition is dismissed; the decision is adverse to the petitioner.