SURESH MAHTO vs PREMLAL MAJHI

Heard

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.

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 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.

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

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.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself.