NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP227 No. 319 of 2024  Arun Kediya S/o Late Jodhraj Kediya Aged About 52 Years R/o Ward No. 07, Latiya Road Akaltara, Tah. And P.S. Akaltara, Dist. Janjgir-Champa, C.G.

---- Petitioner Versus

1. Smt. Sukwara Bai Wd/o Late Shri Munna Kumar Harvansh Aged About 41 Years R/o Vill- Khaira, P.S. And Tahsil Masturi, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G.

2. Manoj Kumar S/o Late Shri Munna Kumar Harvansh Aged About 23 Years R/o Vill- Khaira, P.S. And Tahsil Masturi, Dist.

Bilaspur, C.G.

3. Mithun Kumar S/o Late Shri Munna Kumar Harvansh Aged About 20 Years R/o Vill- Khaira, P.S. And Tahsil Masturi, Dist.

Bilaspur, C.G.

4. Mukesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Munna Kumar Harvansh Aged About 18 Years R/o Vill- Khaira, P.S. And Tahsil Masturi, Dist.

Bilaspur, C.G.

5. Kumari Neha D/o Late Shri Munna Kumar Harvansh Aged About 19 Years R/o Vill- Khaira, P.S. And Tahsil Masturi, Dist.

Bilaspur, C.G.

6. Nageshwar Kumar S/o Late Shri Munna Kumar Harvansh Aged About 18 Years R/o Vill- Khaira, P.S. And Tahsil Masturi, Dist.

Bilaspur, C.G.

7. Smt. Makhna Bai W/o Shri Lachhiram Harvansh Aged About 66 Years R/o Vill- Khaira, P.S. And Tahsil Masturi, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G.

8. Ajay @ Goverdhan Prasad Yadav S/o Gopi Yadav Aged About

30 Years R/o Vill- Bargaon, P.S. And Tah. Akaltara, Dist.

Janjgir-Champa, C.G.

---- Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioner : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Not noticed ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravansh i Order On Board

02.5.2024

1. This petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order dated 16.01.2024 passed by Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Janjgir Distt. Janjgir-Champa in Execution Case No.33/2018, whereby the leaned Tribunal has dismissed the application (Annexure-P/5) filed by the petitioner for initiating proceedings against the claimants.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, in pursuance of award dated 06.12.2017 passed by Fourth Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No.250/15 (Annexure-P/1), compensation to the tune of Rs.7,42,000/- was granted in favour of respondents/claimants. Pursuant to aforesaid award, execution proceeding was initiated and subsequently, settlement was arrived at between the parties and rajinama application (Annexure-P/3) was filed by both the parties, in which, the respondents/claimants have admitted that they received Rs.5,50,000/- from the petitioner (owner of the offending vehicle). In this regard, ikrarnama/rajinama was also executed between them on 05.7.2023. However, respondent No.1/Smt. Sukwara Bai admitted before the Court that, she had received Rs.5,50,000/-, but refused to withdraw the execution proceedings on the ground that the settlement has not been done to close the execution proceedings. Thereafter, the learned Executing Court proceeded for recovery of remaining amount of award. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner submitted an application to take appropriate steps against the respondents/claimants, as they have deviated from the terms of settlement, which was objected by the respondents/claimants and in pursuant to that objection, the learned Executing Court has ordered to pay remaining amount of award vide order dated 16.01.2021. Against this order, the petitioner has preferred instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of settlement arrived at between the parties, rajinama/ikararnama (Ex- P/3) has been executed between the parties and based on that settlement, Rs.5,50,000/- has been given to the claimants. He would further submit that on 08.8.2023, respondent No.1/claimant Sukwara Bai admitted before the Court that she had received Rs.5,50,000/- but she refused to withdraw the execution proceedings, rather she stated that she wishes to proceed to recover th