The central legal point established in the judgment is that under Rule 6 of Jharkhand Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 2019, a vehicle involved in an accident can be released if the owner furnishes sufficient security to pay compensation that may be awarded in a claim case arising from the accident.

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. (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 sufficien