Kerala High Court
Pushpalatha S. Jain vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... on 12 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021/23RD MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.27681 OF 2020(I)
PETITIONER:
PUSHPALATHA S. JAIN, AGED 70 YEARS,
W/O. LATE SHANTHI VARMA JAIN,
KALYANA MANDIRAM, PUSPHA ESTATE,
KALPETTA NORTH, WAYANAD - 673 122.
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHYAM PADMAN
SRI.C.M.ANDREWS
SMT.BOBY M.SEKHAR
KUM.LAYA MARY JOSEPH
SRI.HARISH ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
GE PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD, YERAWADA, PUNE - 411 006.
2 BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
3RD FLOOR, COASTAL CHAMBERS, OPP. MERCY ESTATE,
PERUMANOOR P.O., MG ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 015.
3 E.V.M. AUTOCRAFT INDIA PVT. LTD.,
23/649 A1, ANGEL PLAZA, NH 47,
SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KOCHI - 682 022.
4 NAVNIT MOTERS PVT. LTD.,
MANGALORE, BANGALORE HIGHWAY,
PADLI, MANGALORE - 575 007.
R3 BY ADV. SMT.R.MANEESHA
R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.FAZIL
R4 BY ADV. SRI.JITHIN PAUL VARGHESE
R4 BY ADV. SMT.ANN MARY FRANCIS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)No.27681/2020
2
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 4 th
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 4 th
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.
WP(C)No.27681/2020
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
WP(C)No.27681/2020
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
WP(C)No.27681/2020
consider the application in accordance with law.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the contract between the 4 th respondent and the
manufacturer of car is coming to an end and the 4 th
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
ncd/12.02.2021
WP(C)No.27681/2020
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 THE WRITTEN VERSION DATED
13.11.2020 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
IN OP NO.6/2020 BEFORE THE PERMANENT LOK
ADALAT, KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2020
OF THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH, KOZHIKODE
IN IA NO.36/2020 IN OP NO.6/2020.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
INSURANCE ISSUED BY THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, DATED
06.02.2019 FOR THE PERIOD 22.02.2019 TO
21.02.2020(MIDNIGHT)
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE CAR PACKAGE
POLICY ISSUED BY THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, DATED
17.03.2017 WITH ADD-ON-COVER WITH PLAN
NAME DEPRECIATION SHIELD, CONSUMABLE
EXPENSES, VEHICLE REPLACEMENT ADVANTAGE.
