Nagpur: Close on the heels of collapse of flyover span in city’s Kalamna, the NHAI has found itself in one more trouble as Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court on Wednesday sought replies from the agency and other respondents over a gory mishap caused due to a pothole on Nagpur-Amravati National Highway No. 53 killing three kids and a man recently.
The High Court notice came after the petitioner Arun Patil, himself a lawyer, submitted an application pointing out that an accident took place on the highway on October 3 in which four persons, including three children, were killed after a car jumped the road divider and crashed into a bus stop after losing control in the afternoon. The gory mishap occurred as the car driver, a trainee doctor, was trying to avoid a pothole. An aged woman was also injured seriously in the mishap near Satnavri village under Kondhali police jurisdiction, claimed the petitioner through counsel Firdos Mirza.
The judges said that this accident, as stated in the application, took the lives of four persons and injured many more. No reply to this application has been filed. The court grants time to respondents to file a reply to this application, they said.
The NHAI counsel Aneesh Kathane informed the court that Kondhali police had provided only an FIR copy, but did not provide spot panchnama and the statements of witnesses. Subsequently, the High Court bench directed the police to supply copies of spot panchnama and other documents. The police should also submit the case diary of the accident in the court, the judges said while directing the Additional Government Pleader Deepak Thakre to convey the court orders to the police.
Earlier, the respondents, including NHAI, filed a reply regarding imposition of the proposed penalty against the erring contractors who failed to maintain the road. The reply stated that a penalty has been proposed to be imposed upon IRB, Talegaon-Amravati (Tollways) Ltd, one of the concessionaires, for not maintaining the stretch between Talegaon and Amravati. However, the reply did not state whether the proposed penalty has been recovered. “The respondents need to clarify this issue,” the judges said before adjourning the hearing by two weeks.
