Chattisgarh High Court
Suresh Mahto vs Premlal Majhi 14 Wp227/3/2018 Dilip ... on 8 March, 2018
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP227 No. 198 of 2018
1. Suresh Mahto S/o Bhagwat Mahto, Aged About 45 Years R/o Koiri,
Post Tarar, P.S. Daud Nagar, District Aurangabad, Bihar, Presently
Residing At C/o Rajkumar @ Raju Agrawal Village Bonda, P.S.
Saria, Tehsil Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
2. Rajkumar @ Raju Agrawal S/o Banarsi, Aged About 42 Years R/o
Village Bonda, P.S. Saria, Tehsil Baramkela, District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh ..... Non Applicants
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Premlal Majhi S/o S/o Karam Singh Majhi, Aged About 40 Years
2. Smt. Laxmin W/o Premlal Majhi Aged About 38 Years
Both are R/o Village Kashidih, P.S. Chandrapur, Tehsil Dabhra,
District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh ..... Applicants
3. Magma HDI General Insurance Limited Through Branch Manager,
102 Indira Commercial Complex, B.H. Hotel, Natraj Transport
Nagar Korba, Tehsil & District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ....... Non
Applicant No. 3
---- Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Advocate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 08.03.2018 Heard
1. The instant petition is against the order dated 07.11.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sarangarh, District Raigarh, wherein an application to stay the claim case has been refused.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are Driver & Owner of the alleged vehicle wherein the allegations have been clamped that it was involved in the accident wherein two persons died. It is stated that actually the vehicle was 2 not at all involved in this case and this fact was revealed in the separate investigation which was carried out by the Additional Superintendent of Police and the departmental enquiry was also ordered against one Ramprasad Baghel for falsely implicating the vehicle of the petitioners in the accident. He submits that in the criminal case on the same ground, an application was filed to exonerate the petitioners, however, the same having been refused, it was subject of challenge in CRMP No.1286 of 2016 wherein the co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 24.11.2016 has stayed the proceedings of the criminal case. It is stated that when the vehicle was not involved in any accident, the finding which may come in the claim petition may lead to proceed in futility.
3. Perused the order dated 07.11.2017. The respondent No.1 & 2 are the applicants in the claim case wherein it was alleged that the vehicle of the petitioners was involved in accident. The accident took place on 07.02.2016. Perusal of the claim case would show that the vehicle bearing No.C.G.10 M-0240 said to be alleged to be involved in the accident, therefore, only for the fact that Additional Superintendent of Police, Raigarh, has exonerated the vehicle of the petitioners of the accident, the claim case preferred by respondents cannot be stayed as the beneficiary of the claim case are the non-applicants No.1 & 2 who have lost their near & dear one. The petitioners if is sanguine of the fact that the vehicle was not involved in the accident, the same can be proved in the claim case also by adducing proper evidence and the claims Tribunal would be the adjudicating authority to decide the same. Therefore, the balance of convenience to grant stay in favour of the petitioners do not exists by evaluating the interest of 3 respondents No.1 & 2 who are the claimants before the Court below in the claim case. The petitioners shall be at liberty to adduce necessary evidence before the claims Tribunal to prove the fact that the alleged vehicle was not involved in the accident. In view of this, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.
4. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself.
Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) Judge ashu