1 2025:CGHC:11304 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 215 of 2025 Rameshwar Painkra S/o Parsuram Painkra Aged About 50 Years R/o Jamuna Chowk, Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Sangeeta Painkra W/o Late Pradeep Painkra Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Karrabevra, Police Station Bagbahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 2. Nanmati W/o Karansai Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Karrabevra, Police Station Bagbahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 3. Minor Dileshwari D/o Pradeep Painkra Aged About 2 Years Represented Through Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sangeeta Painkra Wife Of Late Pradeep Painkra, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Karrabevra, Police Station Bagbahar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh. 4. Surangandha S/o Durjangandha Aged About 35 Years R/o Manoharpali (Bastipara), Police Station Lefripara, District Sundergarh (Odisha) (Vehicle Driver) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Amit Singh Chouhan, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 07/03/2025 1) By way of this petition, petitioner who is non-applicant No. 2 before the learned Claims Tribunal has assailed the order dated 31.01.2025 passed in Claim Case No. 24/2023 whereby the application U/o 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC has been rejected by the learned Claims Tribunal. AJINKYA PANSARE Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.03.07 17:11:47 +0530 2 2) Facts of the present case are that respondents No. 1 to 3 filed a claim case U/s 166 of the MV Act, 1988 claiming therein compensation against driver (non-applicant No. 1) and petitioner (non-applicant No. 2) inter-alia on the ground that on 07.12.2022, non-applicant No. 1 while driving a pick-up vehicle rashly and negligently, dashed the motor-cycle of the deceased, namely, Prateek Paikra who succumbed to the injuries. The claimants impleaded driver, namely, Surangandha and petitioner as the owner of the offending vehicle. Petitioner moved an application before the learned Claims Tribunal to strike out his name stating that he is not the registered owner of the offending vehicle. The claimants filed reply to the application and stated that Criminal Case No.139/2023 was pending against petitioner before the learned Judicial Magistrate-First Class, Patthalgaon for commission of offense punishable U/s 146, 196, 39, 192 of the MV Act and petitioner therein admitted his guilt and also paid the fine amount. Learned Claims Tribunal placing reliance over admission of guilt made by the petitioner in criminal case, rejected the application. 3) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is not the registered owner of the offending vehicle and claimants have failed to produce documentary evidence in this regard, therefore, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have allowed the application. 4) Heard. 5) Evidently, Criminal Case No. 139/2023 was registered against the petitioner wherein he has admitted his guilt and also paid the fine amount. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned Claims Tribunal rightly rejected the application so moved by the petitioner U/o 1 Rule 10(2) of 3 CPC. 6) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, no case is made out to interfere with the order impugned. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, petitioner would be at liberty to take all defenses available to him before the learned Claims Tribunal. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya