Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20548
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
N. NAGARESH, J
PUSHPALATHA S. JAIN – Appellant
Versus
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. – Respondent
WP(C)/27681/2020
SRI.SHYAM PADMAN, SRI.C.M.ANDREWS, SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR, KUM.LAYA MARY JOSEPH, SRI.HARISH ABRAHAM, SMT.R.MANEESHA, SRI.P.FAZIL, SRI.JITHIN PAUL VARGHESE, SMT.ANN MARY FRANCIS
The court reaffirmed the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to consider interim arrangements regarding vehicle safekeeping amidst ongoing litigation.
Headnote:
Custody - Vehicle Custody - Permanent Lok Adalat - Interim Relief Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, owner of a damaged car, challenged an order from the Permanent Lok Adalat, seeking to prevent the removal of the vehicle and requesting proper custody during ongoing litigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the Permanent Lok Adalat dismissed the interim relief application due to the understanding that safe keeping arrangements were the petitioner's responsibility, not the 4th respondent's.
Issues: Whether the Permanent Lok Adalat erred in denying the petitioner's request for interim custody of the damaged vehicle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found it within the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat to decide on interim arrangements for the vehicle's safekeeping, emphasizing that the responsibility was not with the 4th respondent.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of allowing for further application before the Permanent Lok Adalat regarding vehicle custody.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of February, 2021 The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order of the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kozhikode. The petitioner is the owner of a 'BMW 320 D Sport line' model car. The car met with an accident on 27.04.2019. The car was taken to the 4th respondent-Service Centre. Subsequently, the 4th respondent sent an e-mail to the petitioner requiring to remove the damaged car. The petitioner moved the Permanent Lok Adalat, Kozhikode filing O.P. No.6/2020 and sought an interim relief in I.A. No.36/2020 restraining the 4th respondent from removing the damaged car from its premises. The petitioner also sought to direct respondents 1 to 3 to keep the vehicle in proper custody without demanding demurrage.
2. The Permanent Lok Adalat disposed of the interim application I.A. No. 36/2020 as per Ext.P6 with the following directions:
“It is for the applicant to make necessary arrangements for the safekeeping of her damaged car. Who is to bear the expenses for safekeeping the car is a matter to be decided at the time of disposal of the original application. For the above stated reasons, we are of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled to an order as prayer for.
In the result, the application is dismissed.”
3. The petitioner would contend that the prayer made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 interim application was to direct respondents 1 to 3 to keep proper custody of the car, preventing further loss or damage to the vehicle. However, the Permanent Lok Adalat in Ext.P6 order proceeded as if relief is sought against the 4th respondent and found that the 4th respondent is not responsible for keeping the car of the petitioner and that the petitioner cannot insist that the premises of the 4th respondent-Service Centre should be utilised for safe keeping of the damaged car.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
5. Going through the pleadings, this Court finds that the prayer made by the petitioner was to direct respondents 1 to 3 to take alternate arrangements for safe keeping of vehicle. It is to be noted that the Permanent Lok Adalat held that the 4th respondent is not responsible for maintaining the car.
6. As the litigation is pending before the Permanent Lok Adalat, interim arrangement as regards maintenance or safekeeping of the car is necessary and it is within the jurisdiction of the Permanent Lok Adalat. In the circumstances, if the petitioner moves a further application before the Permanent Lok Adalat for any interim arrangement for safekeeping of the vehicle by the petitioner or respondents 1 to 3, the Permanent Lok Adalat will consider the application in accordance with law.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the contract between the 4th respondent and the manufacturer of car is coming to an end and the 4th respondent will be absolved of his contractual obligation by
31.03.2021.
8. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner moves an interim application as indicated above, within one week, the Permanent Lok Adalat shall consider the same and dispose of the interim application by 31.03.2021 positively. The interim order passed by this Court on 11.12.2020 will continue to enure the benefit of the petitioner for a further period of two weeks.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH JUDGE
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION, OP.NO.6/2020 DATED 03.02.2020 FILED BEFORE THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH, KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 21.09.2020 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM APPLICATION, IA NO.36/2020 IN OP NO.6/2020 DATED 30.09.2020 FILED BEFORE THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH, KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED
12.11.2020 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN IA NO.36/2020 IN OP.NO.6/2020 BEFORE THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH, KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF TH
