Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1105 (MP)

Babulal v. Balkishan

2008-09-04

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2008
ORDER 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant under section 173 of the Motor Act -assailing the award dated 27.3.2003 passed in Claim Case A/02 by XVII, MACT, Indore, whereby the claim was dismissed barred. 2. Shri V.S. Chouhan, counsel appearing for the appellant submits that accident took place on 24.12.1988 and the claim petition was filed on 10.8.1998, which was dismissed on 27.3.2003. He further submits that after the amendment in the Motor Vehicle Act in the year 1994 the limitation which was prescribed earlier has been deleted from section 166, therefore, the dismissal of the claim as time barred is not in accordance with the provisions of law. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of apex Court passed in the matter of Dlzannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya and others, reported in 1996 JLJ 528 , wherein it was held that on account of deleting the provisions of sub section 3 of section 166, there is no limitation for filing the claim petition is in existence and the date of accident is immaterial. In view of the said decision it is argued by Shri Chouhan that dismissal of the claim petition by the claims Tribunal is without due consideration of the settled position of law. Therefore, the award passed by claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Tribunal for determination of decision in accordance with law. 3. On the other hand Shri Dandvate, counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Insurance company has made an endevour to support the order passed by claims Tribunal, but he is not in a position to distinguish the judgment of apex Court in the matter of Dhannalal (supra). He has fairly conceded that the said judgment has recently been upheld by the apex Court in other cases. It is further argued by Shri Dandvate that because claim petition was filed after inordinate delay, therefore, liability of payment of interest cannot be saddled on the Insurance Company. 4. After having heard the counsel appearing for the parties and in view of the judgment of apex Court in the matter of Dhannalal (supra), I am of the considered view that the dismissal of the claim petition as time barred is not in accordance with law, therefore, the order impugned passed by learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside. After having heard the counsel appearing for the parties and in view of the judgment of apex Court in the matter of Dhannalal (supra), I am of the considered view that the dismissal of the claim petition as time barred is not in accordance with law, therefore, the order impugned passed by learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside. So far as arguments with respect to the payment of interest is concerned, it cannot be dealt with at this stage, however it is open to the respondent to raise this issue before claim Tribunal at the time of determination of compensation on merit. 5. In view of the forgoing submissions and the law laid down by the apex Court this appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the claims Tribunal for determination of compensation on merits in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to both sides. Parties directed to appear before the Court below on 22.10.2008. It is that the claims Tribunal shall decide the petition within a pert months from the date of appearance. Record of the Court below transmitted to the Court concerned.