BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR -te- WMT PETITION (227) N0. ^ 2>33 OF 2009 SINOiE - 1. PETITIONER Non-applicant No.4 RESPONDENTS Non-applicant No.l Non-applicant No.2. Claimant ^?li ^^^ Shyam Lal Prajapati S/o R.N. Prajapati, aged about 55 years, R/o Village Bana (Tendua), P.S. Urla, District Raipur (C.G.). VERSUS 1. Raju Prajapati s/o Shyam Lal Prajapati, aged about 20 years, R/o village- Baiia. (Tendua), P.S. Urla, District Raipur (C.G.). 2. Tilakram Sahu S/o Shri Hridayaram Sahu, aged about 50 years, R/o village Pahanda, P.S. Arang, District Raipur (C.G.) Nand Lal @ Raja Verma, aged about 27 years, s/o Shri Jagdish Verma, R/o Shahid Nagar, Birgaon, P.S. Urla, District Raipur (C.G.). »»^w"^' WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION ..±^ OF INDIA HC-22 a?n^r^T I^tw 3^s? 5h*<i<=i» ^Ra ^,^' '3^ V^IHH<4, ^Tll^Ko. ^<ni^y +11*1^11 ^b^icb 3TI^T 'CRRF ^.^:^.C.^.)...^:..^3j^ 'f^ST' ^n^r '5'WIW Trft^T s.u. non'pie snn uysiic^iM 16.12.2009 Shri Satyendra Sahu, /{ Heard on admission. Feeling aggrieved (Annexure P/1), passed by Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for No. 69/08, the instant petitioner. The facts in brief acc< claimant Nand Lal met with Tractor bearing registration injuries. He preferred a clai| Act claiming compensation| against the Driver/Owner o| petitioner. Meanwhile, the ^s and was given to the court. The trial court, by re< purchased the said vehicle ^ date of accident he was not| exonerated the petitioner| compensation to the claimar|tt other respondents. daim&nt CM^f<n<i1l Tn-R^ff ^ f^St iFfl^K ^^ri^R^TT^T i\. Aqarwar !j<dvocate for the petitioner. ty the order dated 02.09.2009 Ithe Xth Additional Motor Accidents |hort 'the Tribunal') in execution case petition has been preferred by the t>rding to the petitioner are that, the |an accident on 13/11 .2007 with the INo. CG-05/ZG-1255 and sustained ii|n petition under Section 1 66 of MV for the injuries sustained by him the Tractor and also against the ^aid vehicle was seized bythe Police Nandlal on Supurdnama by the sording a finding that the petitioner fter the date of accident and on the the registered owner of the vehicle, from his liability to pay any t and passed the award against the -HC-22 ^•oci ^i<<ii<n^ ?Ft» ^WItf, T^^wy 00 sn^r 'q^ra? *11^Cfll 5b^icb* "^ 200 "^R^T" 3:n^?T15FT f<Tiicb ^ni^i 5t»+ii<=r»^Ra 3n^r ^RHW ^rf^ <=hMf<rl41T1 'RTR^ff"? ft^ Tf^R?R '^^ri^m^n^T The claimant obtained course of recovery proceedin^s. the executing court, the petiti^ner vehicle on Supurdnama on th( owner of the vehicle, is entitl^c application has been dismisse|d order. Hencethjs petition. Shri Satyendra Sahu, petitioner would submit that| severa! irregularities in rejecti|ig petitioner, being owner of thje Supurdnama, and therefore, <j)r bad in law and deserves to be| 1 have heard the couns^l Undisputedly, the vehit given to the claimant on the petitioner after the date in the accident was given on| award has been passed ag^inst vehicie, therefore, the claimaht amount of award by selling th( given to him on Supurdnama. that the court below has (^ossession ofthe said vehicle in the By filing the application before claimed the possession of said strength that at present, he being l|d for its Supurdnama. The said by the trial court by the impugned (earned counsel appearing for the the court below has committed the petitioner's appiication. The thje vehicle, is entitied to get it on <j)rder passed by the court below is Iquashed. for petitioner. it^le involved in the accident was Suplurdnama; has been purchased by of ^ccident; the vehicle being jnvolved Supurdnama to the claimant; the the then owner of the said has every right to recover the said vehicle which was admittediy In view of above, it cannot be said co|rimitted any jurisdictional error in ^f T -h ,y^'^ -%.• .^' M ^ ^ 1 |I-HC-22 ^. ~~^ "';NS!^ 3n^?r^T ^w^ ^^^ 5r»^ich«(ia Sahul '75? ^11141d^t. ^Tii<i4i<o. [^<nw^< sn^T xra^ ^\ w^r'grRra? """"""""""""""""""%CT;^ 200 ' 1^81' ^n^T^^nw^T passlng the order impugn^d under Article 227 of the Cons It is well settled princi|| of its supervisory jurisdictionj of India, should refrain itself by the Court below.exce^t illegality, irregularity orjurisc|( ofthe record, which is not in| The petition has no dismissed in limine. ttitution of India. )!e of law that this Court, in exercise junder Artjcte 227 of the Constitution (rom interfering with the order passed in such cases where perversity, jurisc|ctjonal error is writ large on the face ^he present case. |merit and the same is accordingly <=hl<4t<rt<flT1 'HFI^f "^ 'fex^ <^'^l< ^3rf^IH3^r w^rranting int^rference uf thi^ court Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge [Tft^"^f^f