The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the auction sale of a seized JCB vehicle and the denial of insurance subrogation proceeds. The Court held the department was unaware of the insurance dispute when conducting the auction as the registered owner failed to respond to notices.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AWIARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY. THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
■ fes
THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 2256 OF 2020
Between:
Liberty General Insurance Ltd, Rep. by its Claims Manager, Pradeep M. C. S/o. Channaveerappa M Age. 35 years, O/o. 21/15, The Landmark 4‘" Floor, Near Trinity Metro Station, MG Road, Bangalore 560001.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the. High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or . direction, declaring the action of the respondents 3 to 5 in selling the JCB vehicle hearing No. KA-52M-3783 in the public auction to the 9'^ respondent for unreasonable consideration and riot releasing the sale proceeds to the petitioner insurance company as illegal’ of constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to release the auctioned amourit of Rs. 10,50,000/- along with interest to the petitioner Insurance Company in the interest of justice and equity.
lANO: 1 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased-to direct the respondents 2 to 5 to release the auctioned amourit of Rs. 10,50,000/-
/ .
along with interest to the petitioner Insurance Company in the interest of justice and equity.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI
/
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 : GP FOR TRANSPORT
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 & 9 : NONE APPEARED
The Court made the following: ORDER
7
/
! /
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
writ petition No.2256 of 2020
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226. . • I
of the Constitution of India seeking the following .relief
“...to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents 3 to 5 in selling the JCB vehicle bearing N0.KA-52M-3783 in the public auction to the 9^^ respondent for unreasonable consideration and not releasing the sale proceeds to the petitioner insurance company as illegal, arbitrary and ip. violation ofprinciples of natural justice in violation cf Articles 14 of constitution of India and coTTsequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to release the auctioned amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- along with interest to the petitioner Insurance Company in the interest ofJustice and equity... ” 2. The case of the petitioner is that, originally the 8*^ respondent is the owner of the JCB vehicle bearing No.KA-52M3783 which was insured with the petitioner company. Subsequently, the said vehicle was stolen by unknown offenders and a complaint was also filed by the 8* respondent before Station House Officer, Nelamangala Police Station which was registered in Crime No.98/2015 dated 21.04.2015 under Section 379 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
2
\ ,
\ <br>
. ....................”
3
respondent informed the same to the petitioner company and immediately the petitioner company made a request to the respondent Nos.3 to . 5 to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner Insurance Company for which the respondents 3 to 5 refused and highhandedly proceeded with auction in violation of the Rules in vogue and further stated that though the value of the vehicle is more than Rs.20,00,000/-, for the reasons best known to them, the bid was confirmed with Rs. 10,50,000/- which was huge loss to the Insurance Company. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed.
4
<br>A -
■
\
i.e.Deputy Transport Commissioner’s Office, Chittoor vide Vehicle Check Report (VCR) No.l693256 dated 12.05.2018. From the date of seizing of the vehicle, neither owner/driver nor any other representative of the vehicle has made any application for release of the vehicle.
1
•. /
/
'5
/
/
owner of the vehicle nor the financier has turned up. However, the dem^d notice dated 04.02.2019 issued to' the financier was returned on 16.02.2019 on the ground that address was not found.
• i
6
****
i ■i J
\ •
****
12: The case of the petitioner is that, the registered owner of the vehicle is not aware of the criminal case registered at SHO. Nelamangala, Banglore. Karnataka State. The petitioner has made an application under the Right to Information Act. 2005 seeking certain information on 14.06.2019. wherein, it is informed that a Crime was registered for the offences punishable under Section 379 IPC and as well as for the settlement of insurance amount under the theft claim on 20.04.2015 and the petitioner settled the said claim oh 31.05.2016 by taking the rights over the vehicle under subrogation and specitd power of attorney.
7
•I I-
/ f
petition by the insurance company claiming rights as well as refund of the amount in relation to the vehicle already sold in the
public auction.
•8
\
A. .
15. In this case, it is clear that the respondents were not aware of the events that took place between the registered owner of the ’ vehicle and the petitioner. In such a case, the public auction of the vehicle initiated by the respondents is neither illegal, arbitrary nor in violation of principles of natural justice. In view of the same, this Court feels that there are no merits in the present writ petition.
17^ Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is. at liberty to avail the alternative remedy to recover the amounts that the petitioner company is entitled from the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
SD/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
I
HIGH COURT
DATED:19/04/2023
ORDER
WP.No.2256 of 2020
■qf andh^
(Il ustrva I
. Current Section
DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents were bound to stop the public auction of a seized vehicle due to a subrogation claim by an insurance company which they did not know about.
If the auction conducted by the Transport Department was illegal, arbitrary, or in violation of principles of natural justice.
Whether the writ petition against the sale of the vehicle and the retention of proceeds should be allowed.
Liberty General Insurance Ltd
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Abdul Razak
Boya Madhu
V. Sujatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
