LAWS(JHAR)-2011-5-21

SAROJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On May 06, 2011
SAROJ KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle-'Bus' having registration No. BR-12-7608. This vehicle was requisitioned by the District Administration for the law and order purpose in the year, 2008 and when the vehicle was under the control of the District Administration, the vehicle was burnt to ashes and therefore, the Petitioner is claiming the damages and as the Respondents have not paid, this writ petition has been preferred.

(2.) Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the vehicle, in question, is owned by the Petitioner having aforesaid registration number. The vehicle was requisitioned by the District Administration for transporting Armed Forces to Kathikund, Dumka where there was some public agitation. The vehicle, in question, was in total control and possession of the District Administration of the Respondents-State. The vehicle was burnt on 6th December, 2008 when it was under the use of the officers of the District Administration, at Kathikund Police Station, Dumka. These facts have been stated in detail, in the memo of the present petition. As the vehicle was burnt into ashes, the Petitioner is entitled for the damages especially, in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi and Ors., 2008 1 SCC 414.

(3.) Counsel for the Respondents submitted that it is true that the vehicle, in question, was requisitioned for maintaining law and order by the District Administration of the State. The vehicle, in question, was also in total possession and control of the State authorities. It is also fact that the vehicle was burnt into ashes on the date and place, as stated in the memo of the petition. But, the question is that who has to pay the compensation to the Petitioner whether the Respondents-State or the Insurance Company because the vehicle, in question, was having insured and therefore, unless that aspect of the matter is decided, total liability is fastened upon the Respondents-State.