The facts of all the three cases were that vehicles were seized for being involved in an accident and the owner of the vehicles (petitioners’) applications were dismissed because the vehicle was not insured on the date of the accident. The Sessions Judges in all the three cases had relied upon the judgment of the High Court Court in Ramakrushna Mahasuar v.. State of Odisha (2021) 81 OCR 635 and held that the vehicle was not covered under a valid policy of insurance covering the date of the accident and therefore, the vehicle could not be released in favour of the petitioner.
The petitioner pleaded that the Magistrate committed illegality in holding that the vehicle in question was not covered under the policy of insurance even though there were ample materials on record to show that the vehicle was actually under insurance coverage at the relevant time. Taking the reference of RamakrushnaMahasuar’s case, per contra, the opposite party supported the impugned orders by contending that Rule-6 of 2018 Rules puts an embargo on the release of vehicle involved in an accident-causing death or bodily injury to any person or damage to property if, on the date of the accident, the vehicle is not covered under a policy of insurance covering 3rd party risks.

The Court, in this case, said, that a reading of the Rule revealed that undoubtedly certain restrictions have been placed by the Legislature in the matter of release of a vehicle involved in an accident if the said vehicle was not covered by an Insurance Policy but, it was also evident that an exception had been carved out in the latter part of sub-Rule(1) to the effect that such vehicle could also be released if the registered owner furnishes sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Court and it would not be unreasonable to hold that if and when the Court is unable to quantify the compensation, it would be proper to ask for security at least equal to the present market value of the vehicle. Upon furnishing such security, the vehicle could be directed to be released. However, in all the three cases before this Court, no such direction was issued to the owners of the vehicles (petitioners) to furnish security and yet their applications were rejected on the ground that they had failed to furnish such security. Given the discussion on the legislative intent made hereinbefore, the Court was constrained to observe that the methodology adopted was improper. Thus, all the impugned orders were quashed and the concerned Courts were asked to follow the process illustrated in the judgment.