Jharkhand High Court
Yatendra Kumar @ Jyotindra Kumar vs National Insurance Company ... on 28 January, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 219 of 2022
Yatendra Kumar @ Jyotindra Kumar ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. National Insurance Company Limited, Siwan (Bihar), at present at
Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro through its Divisional Manager
2. The State of Jharkhand
3. The District Certificate Officer, Bokaro .... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Surabhi, Advocate
For the Respondent No. 1: Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.-V
-----
Order No. 02 Dated: 28.01.2022
The present case is taken up through video conferencing.
2. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects, as
pointed out by the office, are ignored.
3. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the entire
proceeding of Certificate Case No. 10 of 2019-20 initiated by the District
Certificate Officer, Bokaro (the respondent no. 3) on the requisition of the
respondent no. 1. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the notice
dated 08.01.2021 issued to him by the respondent no. 3 under Section 7 of
the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (in short, "the Act,
1914") for payment of Rs.6,02,541/- in the said certificate case and to stay
the proceeding of the certificate case during pendency of the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the
respondent no. 1 (the requisitioning officer) in sending the requisition to the
respondent no. 3 so as to initiate a certificate proceeding for realisation of
the aforesaid amount is completely illegal and there has been no adjudication
by a competent court of law regarding any violation of terms and conditions
of the insurance policy. In fact, the learned District Judge-II-cum- Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.), Bokaro, vide judgment/award dated
12.06.2019 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 52 of 2016, had given
liberty to the respondent no. 1 to realise the compensation amount from the
petitioner if he had violated the terms of the policy. Since the said aspect was
not determined by the M.A.C.T., Bokaro, the petitioner filed an application in
Motor Accident Claim Case No. 52 of 2016 praying inter alia to accordingly
review the judgment/award dated 12.06.2019 passed in the said case.
However, the District Judge-Ist-cum-M.A.C.T, Bokaro, vide order dated
21.12.2021 rejected the said review petition preferred by the petitioner. In
the meantime, on requisition of the respondent no. 1, a notice dated
08.01.2021 was again issued by the respondent no. 3 under Section 7 of the
Act, 1914 calling upon the petitioner to pay the certificate amount of
Rs.6,02,541/-. Since the issue as to whether there has been any violation of
the terms of the insurance policy by the petitioner has not yet been
determined, the respondent no. 3 has no jurisdiction to initiate the certificate
proceeding on the requisition of the respondent no. 1.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 as well as the respondent nos.
2 and 3 jointly submit that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the
petitioner has efficacious remedy of preferring an appeal under Section 60 of
the Act, 1914 against the issuance of warning notice/attachment warrant
dated 20.07.2021 issued by the respondent no. 3 in the concerned certificate
case. Moreover, neither the judgment/award dated 12.06.2019 passed by the
learned District Judge-II-cum-M.A.C.T, Bokaro nor the order of review dated
21.12.2021 passed by the learned District Judge-1st-cum-M.A.C.T, Bokaro in
Motor Accident Claim Case No. 52 of 2016 is under challenge in the present
writ petition. There is no infirmity on the part of the respondent no. 1 in
sending the requisition to the respondent no. 3 for initiating certificate case
for realisation of the awarded amount from the petitioner and hence, the
present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the
writ petition.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
liability of the petitioner to pay the amount for which certificate proceeding
has been initiated, has not yet been determined. Though the District Judge-
II-cum-M.A.C.T., Bokaro, vide judgment/award dated 12.06.2019, had given
liberty to the respondent no. 1 to get the awarded amount realised from the
petitioner if he had violated the terms of the insurance policy, the said aspect
has not yet been adjudicated by any competent court of law and therefore,
the liability of the petitioner to pay the said amount still remains
undetermined.
8. Be that as it may. On perusal of the copy of order-sheet of Certificate
Case No. 10 of 2019-20 (annexed as Annexure-4 to the present writ petition),
it appears that on requisition of the respondent no. 1, the said certificate
proceeding was initiated by the respondent no. 3 and notice under Section 7
of the Act, 1914 was issued to the certificate- debtor/petitioner on
09.01.2020. The said certificate case was then taken up after about a year
i.e. on 08.01.2021 and on the said date, the respondent no. 3 issued fresh
notice to the petitioner. The order dated 05.03.2021/12.03.2021 passed by
the respondent no. 3 in the said certificate case suggests that a written
statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner through his lawyer and the
case was ordered to be listed on 12.04.2021. However, surprisingly on the
next date i.e. on 12.04.2021, though the certificate- debtor/petitioner was
represented through his counsel, yet the respondent no. 3 without passing
any order under Section 10 of the Act, 1914 observed that if the certificate
amount was not paid by the petitioner, process for realisation of the same
would be initiated and thereafter on 20.07.2021, warning notice/attachment
warrant was issued against the petitioner.
9. It thus appears that though the written statement in the form of an
objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914 was filed on behalf of the
petitioner on 05.03.2021/12.03.2021, yet the respondent no. 3, without
considering the same and passing an order as required under Section 10 of
the Act, 1914, straightaway issued the warning notice/attachment warrant to
the petitioner for realisation of the certificate amount. It is a settled law that
if the certificate-debtor files an objection under Section 9 of the Act, 1914, it
is the statutory duty of the certificate officer to consider the same and pass
appropriate order under Section 10 of the Act, 1914. Hence, the respondent
no. 3 has committed procedural impropriety in conducting the certificate
case. Since, the petitioner has already filed the written statement as would
be evident from order dated 05.03.2021/12.03.2021 passed in Certificate
Case No. 10 of 2019-20, this court does not intend to go into the merit of the
claim, rather the case is remanded to the respondent no. 3 to pass an
appropriate order under Section 10 of the Act, 1914 after considering the
written statement/objection filed by the petitioner in the said certificate case
and thereafter to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. All the orders
passed by the respondent no. 3 after 05.03.2021/12.03.2021 in the said case
including orders dated 12.04.2021 and 14.07.2021/20.07.2021 are set aside.
10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Ritesh/ (Rajesh Shankar, J.)
