RAJA RAM GARG Vs. CHHANGA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been referred to a Division Bench by one of us (R.R.K. Trivedi, J.). The question for consideration is whether further proceedings in the motor accident claim petition be stayed pending disposal of the criminal case.

(2.) The petitioner is the driver of a truck bearing registration No. UTW 4700. Crime Case No. 230 of 1988 P.S. Raipura, District Banda, was registered against him under Section 307, I. P.C. with the allegation that he attempted to kill Pradeep Singh Sengar, Station House Officer of the said Police Station. After the death of the injured, the offence was converted into one under Section 302, I. P.C. The allegation, in short, is that the petitioner, while driving the said truck, intentionally hit the motor-cycle, in which Pradeep Singh Sengar was travelling, and caused him serious injuries, which ultimately led to his death. We are told that the case has been committed and is now numbered as session trial No. 94 of 1988 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karvi. The trial in the Sessions Court has not yet commenced.

(3.) The heirs and legal representatives of the deceased Police Officer instituted a motor accident claim petition, being claim Petition No.126/70 of 1988 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banda, claiming compensation/ damages in a sum of Rs. 80,86,000.00 for the death of the said Police Officer. The said amount is claimed under several heads. Respondents in the claim petition are the petitioner here in (Rajaram Garg, impleaded as second respondent), Ram Lal Garg (First respondent/owner of the truck) and the United India Insurance Company, Banda (the insurer/ third respondent). According to the claimants, second respondent in the claim petition (petitioner in this Civil Revision) intentionally dashed against the motor-cycle, on which the deceased was travelling, with intent to kill him and caused him serious injuries leading to his death. In the claim petition, the revision-petitioner has filed a written statement, wherein he has denied the several allegations made in the claim petition and pleaded further that since he is being prosecuted in a criminal court in respect of the very same transaction, the claim petition, which too involves adjudication of the very same issues, should be stayed. Issues have been framed in the claim petition. Issue No. 5 is to the following effect :- Whether proceedings in the claim are liable to be stayed for the reason mentioned in paragraph 28 of the written statement, i.e., on account of the pendency of the criminal case? This issue was heard as a preliminary issue and by its order dt. 7-1-1991, the claims Tribunal held that proceedings in the claim petition need not be stayed. The present revision petition is preferred against the said order.