Uninsured vehicles involved in accidents cannot be released without sufficient security to cover potential compensation claims, protecting victim rights.

JUDGMENT :

Savitri Ratho, J.

The petitioner-Mukund Namdev has filed this Criminal Revision petition challenging the order dated 18.03.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pipili , rejecting the application filed by him under Section-457 of Cr.P.C. for release of his vehicle (Grand I 10 car ) bearing Registration No. OD-02-AW-9916, in interim custody under Sections-279/337/338/304(A) of I.P.C. read with Section-196 of Motor Vehicle Act.

2. The brief facts of the case is that when the petitioner was returning from Puri to Bhubaneswar in his Grand-I-10 car bearing Registration No. OD-02-AW-9916, two persons on a motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his car near Mangalpur Petrol pump , as a result of which both the rider and pillion rider sustained grievous injury. They were immediately shifted to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar for treatment and during such treatment, the pillion rider succumbed to his injuries and the rider was shifted to Sree Hospital, Bhubaneswar for further treatment. An F.I.R. was registered against the present petitioner in Pipili Police Station. The vehicle was not covered under a policy of insurance on the date of accident .

3. Mr. Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the vehicle is the personal car of the petitioner and since the date of its seizure , its lying in open exposed to the sun and rain and getting damaged and as it is not liable to be confiscated , it should be released in his custody . He relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sundarbhai Ambalal Desai vs State of Gujarat reported in (2002)10 SCC 283 in support of his submissions that no useful purpose will be served if the vehicle is left lying in the police station .

4. Mr. K.K. Nayak, learned Additional Standing Counsel opposes the prayer for interim release submitting that as the vehicle was not covered by a valid insurance policy on the date of accident , and one person has died and another seriously injured , the vehicle of the petitioner may have to be sold to satisfy their claims for compensation , for which it should not be released . He relies on the decision rendered in Jai Prakash vs National Insurance Company reported in (2010) 2 SCC 607 and Ramakrishna Mahasuar vs State of Odisha reported in (2021) 81 OCR 635 and Rule 6 of Orissa Motor Vehicles (Accidents Claims Tribunal) Rules, 2018 ( in short the "Odisha 2018 Rules") in support of his submissions .

5. The learned J.M.F.C Pipili relying on the decision in the case of Ramakrishna Mahasuar ( supra) has rejected the prayer for interim release of the vehicle .

6. In the case of Jai Prakash ( supra) , the Supreme Court has held as follows :

….“Where there is no insurance cover for a vehicle, the owner should be directed to offer security or deposit an amount, adequate to satisfy the award that may be ultimately passed, as a condition precedent for release of the seized vehicle involved in the accident. If such security or cash deposit is not made, within a period of three months, appropriate steps may be taken for disposal of the vehicle and hold the sale proceeds in deposit until the claim case is disposed of. The appropriate Governments may consider incorporation of a rule on the lines of Rule 6 of the Delhi Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 2008 in this behalf.”

This direction has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Ushadevi & Anr. vs. Pawan Kumar & Others , (Civil Appeal No(s). 9936-9937/2016), decided on 13.09.2018, and the State Governments who had not framed such rules were directed to bring out necessary notifications on the lines of the notif