Back
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
ILESH J. VORA, J
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 13270 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR M M SHAIKIH, MR UVESH M SHAIKH
For the Respondents: MR KANVA ANTANI, APP
Insurance companies can reclaim seized vehicles if they were the financiers, emphasizing timely release to safeguard their rights.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 451 and 457 - Release of seized vehicle - Petitioner, an insurance company, sought return of a seized vehicle insured by them after settlement claim with the original owner - Court emphasized on timely release of seized vehicles and directives for handling such cases - Ground for petition: denial of release impacting the petitioner's rights as the financier. (Paras 2-6)
(B) Petition allowed - Vehicle to be handed over to the petitioner for appropriate disposal under Court's instruction - Respondent not yet being absolute owner as payment for the loan is pending. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
Insurance company claimed possession of a vehicle seized in connection with FIR for liquor found in the vehicle being the financier of the said vehicle, which was reported stolen.
Findings of Court:
Court ordered the release of the vehicle to the petitioner under appropriate conditions while ensuring legal compliance regarding its disposal.
Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioner, as an insurer, has the right to reclaim the seized vehicle given the circumstances of the claim settlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that the denial of the vehicle's release constituted a deprivation of the insurer's rights, emphasizing the need for procedures to expedite the release of seized property.
Result: Petition is allowed; vehicle to be returned.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's right to vehicle possession. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. supporting arguments for vehicle release. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court directives on vehicle handling. (Para 6) |
| 4. insurer's rights in the context of law. (Para 8) |
ORDER
1. RULE. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent – State.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ, order or direction directing the respondent to release/handover of custody of seized Muddamal vehicle bearing Registration No.GJ-01-CX-7949 which came to be seized by the Investigating Officer in connection with FIR being CR No.III-232 of 2019 registered with Tharad Police Station, Dist: Banaskantha to the petitioner on appropriate conditions as deemed fit by this High Court.
3. The petitioner is a General Insurance Company who had insured the muddamal vehicle. A complaint has been reported for stealing the aforesaid vehicle from the jurisdiction of Sarkhej Police Station, Ahmedabad. The petitioner had paid the claim amount to the insured person. Thereafter, the petitioner and the insured person had made full and final settlement claim and the insured person has made signature on the consent letter cum full and final settlement agreement.
Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for obtaining possession of the vehicle which was seized as muddamal.
4. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
5. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon orders passed by this Court in Special Criminal Application Nos. 2538 of 2014; 2283 of 2016 and 2300 of 2016.
6. This Court had passed the following order in Special Criminal Application No. 2538 2014 which reads as under :-
- “16. In such circumstances, I am of the view that the vehicle should be handed over to the finance company and the company should be permitted to sell the vehicle subject to certain terms and conditions. In this context may quote with profit a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of General Assurance Counsel and others v. State of A.P. And others, 2010 AIR SCW 2967. The Supreme Court has made the following observations in paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 which reads as under:-
- “14. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid information is required to be utilised and followed scrupulously and has to be given positively as and when asked for by the Insurer. We also feel, it is necessary that in addition to the directions issued by this Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (Supra) considering the mandate of Section 451 read with Section 457 of the Code, the following further directions with regard to seized vehicles are required to be given with Section 457 of the Code, the following further directions with regard to seized vehicles are required to be given.
- “(A) Insurer may be permitted to move a separate application for release of the recovered vehicle as soon as it is informed of such recovery before the Jurisdicitonal Court. Ordinarily, release shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of the application. The necessary photographs may be taken duly authenticated and certified, and a detailed panchamama may be prepared before such release.
- (B) The photographs so taken may be used as secondary evidence during trial. Hence, physical production of the vehicle may be dispensed with.
- Insurer would submit an undertaking/guarantee to remit the proceeds from the sale/auction of the vehicle conducted by the Insurance Company in the event that the Magistrate finally adjudicates that the rightful ownership of the vehicle, pursuant to the application for release of the recovered vehicle. Insistence on personal bonds may be dispensed with looking to the corporate structure of the insurer.”
- and when vehicles are seized and kept in various police stations, not only they oc
