1 2025:CGHC:5248 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP(227) No. 108 of 2020 • Dhanesh Nayak S/o. Late Shri Jaylal Nayak Aged About 26 Years R/o. Nayak Para, Basna, Police Station And Tehsil- Basna, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ------- Non-Applicant No.1 ---Petitioner Versus 1. Jaiwant Nag S/o. Shri Chamru Nag Aged About 58 Years R/o. Narsinghpur, Police Station Basna, Tehsil- Pithora, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 2. Charusheela Nag W/o. Shri Jaiwant Nag Aged About 48 Years R/o. Narsinghpur, Police Station Basna, Tehsil- Pithora, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ------------ Applicants 3. Bhojram Sahu S/o. Shri Jhaduram Sahu Aged About 46 Years R/o. Village- Mohtara, Police Station- Gidhori, District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ------------ Non-Applicant No. 2 4. Virendra Kumar Agrawal S/o. Shri Jai Bhagwan Agrawal R/o. Village- Boirdih, Post- Jagdishpur, Tehsil- Pithora, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ------------ Non-Applicant No. 3 --- Respondents For Petitioner/ Driver of offending Vehicle : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 29/01/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Mr. Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to an award passed by the Additional Motor Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 Accident Claims Tribunal, Saraipali, District Mahasamund dated 19.06.2019 in Claim Case No. 21/2018 the execution proceeding has been pending before the learned Executing Court since 29.07.2019. He would contend that the award of Rs.5,80,000/- was passed in favour of the claimants and liability was fastened with the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. He would further contend that the claimants entered into a compromise with the owner alone. He would further submit that the order sheet dated 19.07.2019 would reveal that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the owner of the vehicle, it was accepted by the claimants and the amount was happily received by the claimants. He would also contend that the statements of the claimants were recorded by the Claims Tribunal. He would further argue that the claimants have categorically stated before the Claims Tribunal that against the award of Rs.5,80,000/-, they were ready to settle the dispute for Rs.1,00,000/- only. He would further argue that an execution application was filed by the claimants against the driver of the vehicle. He would also argue that when the matter was settled between the claimants and the owner of the vehicle, there was no occasion for the claimants to move an application for execution and the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have rejected such application for execution. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Rajendra Patel, learned counsel appearing for the offending vehicle/respondent No. 3 would submit that the dispute between the claimants and the owner of the vehicle has already been settled. He would further submit that the execution proceeding is going on against the driver of the vehicle. 3 4. I have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 5. An award of Rs.5,80,000/- was passed against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The order sheet dated 19.07.2019 would show that the matter was settled between the claimants and the owner of the vehicle. The claimant accepted the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- against the award of Rs.5,80,000/-. The application was filed by the claimants in this regard and their statements were recorded before the Claims Tribunal. 6. The claimants moved an application for execution against the driver for the entire amount of the award. When the matter was settled between the owner of the vehicle and the claimants and the award was satisfied, there was no reason or occasion for the claimants to move an application for execution. 7. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the petitioner/driver of the offending vehicle is granted liberty to make a fresh application before the Claims Tribunal stating the grounds raised in the present petition and in turn, the Executing Court is directed to consider such application strictly in accordance with the law preferably within a period of 60 days from the next date of hearing. 8. The interim order dated 03.02.2020 granted earlier shall continue for a period of 60 days. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti