Gujarat High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs State Of Gujarat on 2 January, 2023
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
R/SCR.A/13497/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/01/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 13497 of 2022
==========================================================
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. THROUGH NILESH B.
SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR M M SHAIKIH(11314) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR UVESH M SHAIKH(11313) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS MOXA THAKKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 02/01/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the
consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is
taken up for final disposal.
2. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India with a prayer to release Muddamal Vehicle i.e. Maruti Suzuki
Brezza car bearing RTO registration No. DL 14 CD 6365.
3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner which is General
Insurance Company had insured muddamal vehicle for a period of
12 months and a complaint has been reported for stealing the said
car at Patparganj Police Station, Delhi, being C.R.No.007595 of
2019. The insured claimed to the petitioner as per his private car
package policy and after completion some necessary formalities,
the petitioner had paid to the insured person a claim amount of
Rs.8,02,574/- and the insured person had signed a Letter of
SUBROGATION and therefore, the petitioner prays that it is entitled
to take possession and dispose of the muddamal vehicle.
R/SCR.A/13497/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/01/2023
4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is
the ownership of the vehicle in question and if the petitioner is not given
possession and permitted to sell the vehicle in question, it will further
deteriorate and will not be worthy of usage in future. It is submitted that
the Court below has not properly considered the judgment of the Apex
Court in case of General Insurance Council and others vs. State of
A.P., reported in 2010 AIR SCW 2967 relied upon by the petitioner,
wherein the Apex Court has categorically held in paragraph 14 that insurer
be permitted to move separate application for release of the recovered
vehicle and ordinarily, release shall be made within a period of 30 days
from the date of the application.
6. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to
abide by all the conditions as may be imposed by this Court; however,
with a liberty to sell the vehicle in question. Reliance has been placed on
the judgment in the case of General Insurance Council and others vs.
State of A.P. (supra) to contend that the Apex Court has issued
direction with regard to the seized vehicles and their release. Learned
advocate for the petitioner has also placed reliance on various orders
passed by the coordinate benches of this Court releasing the vehicles by
imposing conditions. It is thus submitted that applying the principles laid
down by the Apex Court so also various orders passed by the coordinate
benches of this Court, the present petition be allowed and the petitioner
be permitted to sell the vehicle in question by imposing suitable
conditions.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondent State states that this Court may pass appropriate order.
8. Pertinently, the Apex Court in case of General Insurance Council
(supra) has observed in paragraphs 14 and 15 as under:
R/SCR.A/13497/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/01/2023
"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.
"(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. (C) 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.
15. It is a matter of common knowledge that as and when
vehicles are seized and kept in various police stations, not only they
occupy substantial space of the police stations but upon being kept
in open, are also prone to fast natural decay on account of weather
conditions. Even a good maintained vehicle loses its road
worthiness if it is kept stationary in the police station for more than
fifteen days. Apart from the above, it is also a matter of common
knowledge that several valuable and costly parts of the said
vehicles are either stolen or are cannibalised so that the vehicles
become unworthy of being driven on road. To avoid all this, apart
from the aforesaid directions issued hereinabove, we direct that all
the State Governments/ Union Territories/Director Generals of Police
shall ensure macro implementation of the statutory provisions and
further direct that the activities of each and every police stations,
especially with regard to disposal of the seized vehicles be taken
care of by the Inspector General of Police of the concerned Division/
Commissioner of Police of the concerned cities/Superintendent of
Police of the concerned district."
9. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it may be noted that the
petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is
engaged in the business of the banking and insured the car. Perceptibly,
the First Information Report was registered and since then the vehicle in
question is in the custody of the police. In such an eventuality, observing
the principles laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions, it would be
R/SCR.A/13497/2022 ORDER DATED: 02/01/2023
in the fitness of things to release the vehicle and permit the petitioner to
sell the vehicle in question, imposing suitable conditions.
10. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. The authority concerned is
directed to release the vehicle of the petitioner being Maruti Suzuki
Brezza car bearing RTO registration No. DL 14 CD 6365 on the
terms and conditions that the petitioner:
(i) shall furnish a solvent surety of the amount equivalent to the value of the
vehicle in question as per the value disclosed in the seizure memo or
panchnama.
(ii) shall file an undertaking before the trial Court that prior to alienation or
transfer in any mode or manner, prior permission of the concerned Court
shall be taken till conclusion of the trial;
(iii) shall also file an undertaking to produce the vehicle as and when directed by
the trial Court;
(iv) in the event of any offence, the vehicle shall stand CONFISCATED.
(v) Before handing over the possession of the vehicle to the petitioner,
necessary photographs shall be taken and a detailed panchnama in that
regard, if not already drawn, shall also be drawn for the purpose of trial .
11. With these observations and modifications, the petition is allowed to
the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
Service is permitted.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
SUCHIT
