The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2019 in releasing seized vehicles and the imposition of specific terms and conditions for release.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.06.2021 passed in Sessions Trial Case No.47 of 2021 arising out of Mango Olidih P.S. Case No.247 of 2020, corresponding to G.R. Case No.137 of 2021, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner for release of seized vehicle i.e. Tata Safari Storme bearing Registration No. JH05-CH-7722 has been rejected, pending in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Jamshedpur.

3. Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question. The petitioner has filed petition for release of the vehicle before the learned court which was seized pursuant to the accident. She further submits that the vehicle is lying in open filed since 02.10.2020. She also submits that the learned court vide order dated 28.06.2021 rejected the application filed by the petitioner for release of the said vehicle on the ground that no document in support of 2 Cr.M.P. No. 606 of 2022 the insurance of the vehicle of the said date has been furnished by the petitioner. She further submits that the learned court has not interpreted Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2019 in its correct perspective. She also submits that Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2019 speaks that the vehicle can be released 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. She further submits that Rule 6 of the said Rule has not been considered properly by the learned court. She submits that since the vehicle in question is lying in open field, no purpose will serve in keeping the vehicle deteriorated.

4. Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer of Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order as at the time of accident the vehicle was not insured.

5. For the correct appreciation of the case, Rule 6 of the Jharkhand Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 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 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. Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits at bar that the petitioner is ready to deposit the sufficient security/bond to the satisfaction