HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
NOUSHAD, – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, – Respondent
Crl.MC/4012/2019
Insurance - Motor Vehicle Custody - Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 Section 391A - Court interprets Rule 391A to emphasize the unavailability of vehicle release without insurance in injury-related accidents, guiding the decision to reassess custody applications in light of the settlement reached.
Fact of the Case:
The headmaster of a school sought interim custody of a school bus involved in an accident causing injury to a respondent. The initial request was denied by the Magistrate due to the lack of insurance coverage for the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Magistrate had misinterpreted Rule 391A, which prohibits release of vehicles not covered by insurance. The court directed a reassessment, allowing for potential release based on the settlement between the parties.
Issues: Whether the learned Magistrate erred in denying interim custody of the vehicle based on the requirement for insurance coverage under Rule 391A.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that Rule 391A mandates insurance compliance for vehicle release in injury cases, but also allows for reassessment of release applications upon evidence of settlement and security provision.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the Magistrate was instructed to reconsider the application for interim custody.
The petitioner herein is the headmaster of a school. The school bus met with an accident causing injuries to the 2nd respondent herein. Crime No.39 of 2019 was registered and the vehicle was taken into custody. An application was filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody. The said application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate holding that the vehicle was plied without insuring the same. The learned Magistrate also took the view that Rule 391A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 specifically prohibits the release of a vehicle involved in an accident if the vehicle is not covered by a police of insurance against third party risks.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that immediately after the accident, the parties have settled the dispute and an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- was paid to the second respondent, as is evidenced by Annexure-D affidavit. He would further contend that the learned Magistrate had erred in dismissing the application relying on Rule 391A of the Rules. 3. I have considered the submissions advanced.
4. From the order impugned, it appears that the application was rejected on the sole ground that the vehicle was not covered by a policy of insurance against third party risks and hence, Section 391A of the Motor Vehicles Rules would act as an embargo. Rule 391A is extracted below for easy reference.
“391 A. 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 owner or when the owner fails to furnish copy of such insurance policy despite demand by investigating police officer, unless and until 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.
(2) Where the motor vehicle is not covered by a policy of insurance against third party risks, or when the owner of the motor vehicle fails to furnish copy of such policy in circumstance 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 the purpose of satisfying the compensation that may have been awarded, or may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident.”
5. The Rule mandates that immediately after the accident involving death or bodily injury or damage to property, the owner of the vehicle is liable to produce the policy of insurance against third party risks taken in the name of the owner on being demanded by the investigating officer. When he fails to do so, the learned Magistrate can insist upon the owner to furnish security to the satisfaction of the court to pay compensation that may be awarded in a claim instituted by the injured. If he refuses to furnish security or furnish copy of the insurance, in the circumstances mentioned above, within a period of three months from the date of taking possession of the vehicle by the investigating officer, the learned Magistrate having jurisdiction will proceed to sell the vehicle in public auction. The sale proceeds will then be deposited with the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area, within 15 days from the date of sale for the purpose of satisfying the compensation that may have been awarded or may be awarded in a case.
6. In view of the above, when a vehicle which is not covered by a policy of insurance against third party risks or when the owner of the motor vehicle fails to furnish copy of such p
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.