The court ruled that the vehicle can be released to the registered owner if sufficient security is provided under Rule 6 of the Odisha Motor Vehicles (Accidents Claims Tribunal) Rules, despite challenges regarding insurance.

JUDGMENT :

V. NARASINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Assailing the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patnagarh dated 15.10.2022 in Criminal Revision No.01 2022 confirming the order dated 03.03.2022 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Patnagarh in CMC No.121 of 2021 rejecting the application of the Petitioner filed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle in his favour, this Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482 Cr.P.C is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle bearing registration number OD-03-H-2904, he is liable to take the zima of the vehicle as the vehicle is kept in front of the police station exposed to vagaries of nature.

4. He further submits that since the courts below have committed manifest error in not directing the Petitioner to furnish security as per Rule 6 of the Odisha Motor Vehicles (Accidents Claims Tribunal) Rule, 2018, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

5. In this context, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 13.12.2021 in the case of Nabaratna @ Nabaratan Agrawal Vs. State of Odisha , 2021 (Supp) OLR 83.

6. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below and submits that there being no patent illegality in the impugned orders, the matter does not merit consideration of this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. Rule 6 of 2018 Rules is quoted hereunder for ready reference :

“6. Prohibition against release of motor vehicle involved in accident:-

(1) No court shall release a motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in death or 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 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.”

7-A. It can be seen that there is no embargo on the Revisional Court while exercising power under Section 457 Cr.P.C. to release the vehicle in question, if the owner is able to provide “sufficient security” as envisaged under Rule 6 of 2018 Rules.

8. Though the learned Revisional Court has referred to Rule 6 of 2018 Rules yet failed to appreciate the special circumstances in the case at hand for release of the vehicle in favour of the owner on furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the court. And, more so when there is no dispute relating to his ownership of the vehicle in question.

9. On a conspectus of the materials on record and taking into account the provisions of Rule 6 of 2018 OMV (Accidents Claims Tribunal) Rules and the law laid down by this Court in the case of Nabaratna @ Nabaratan Agrawal (supra), this Court sets aside the impugned orders and directs release of the vehicle as per Rule 6 of 2018 Rules within a period of one week, on the Petitioner furnishing security to the satisfaction of the learned Court in seisin.

10. The CRLMC is accordingly disposed of.

11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules.