Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 854 (PAT)

Kanchan Mahato v. Champa Devi

2014-08-07

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, JAYANANDAN SINGH, R.M.DOSHIT

body2014
Order This Appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle, a tractor-trailer, against the order dated 29th September 2001 made by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Claim Case No. 132 of 1997 for interim compensation under section 140 of the 1988 Act. 2. Under order dated 29th July 2003, the matter has been referred to the Full Bench for authoritative pronouncement on the issue whether against the order of interim compensation made under section 140 of the 1988 Act, the appeal shall lie under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act or can such order be challenged in a revision application under section 115 CPC. 3. The matter is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the matter of Yallwwa & Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another [ AIR 2007 SC 2582 ], categorically held “an order of the Tribunal awarding compensation under Section 140 of the Act is appealable under Section 173 as it amounts to an award under Section 173”. The above judgment is followed in the matter of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Serjerao and Others [ AIR 2008 SC 460 ] [2008(1) PLJR (SC) 127]. 4. The matter having thus been put at rest, we hold that the present Appeal against the impugned order dated 29th September 2001 made by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Claim Case No.132 of 1997 is maintainable. In view of the aforesaid binding precedents, judgment in the matter of Harihar Singh Vs. Nawal Kishore Chauhan [ 2001(4) PLJR 482 ] is affirmed. The contrary view, if any, is expressly overruled. 5. Ordinarily Appeal should be remitted to the Bench of the learned single Judge for hearing on merits. However, in the present case, learned Advocate Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha has appeared for the appellants. He has submitted that he has no instructions whether the aforesaid Claim Case No.132 of 1997 has finally been decided by the Tribunal. 6. The matter being 17 years old, we presume that Claim Case No.132 of 1997 has been finally decided. 7. We accordingly dispose of this Appeal. Stay, if any, stands vacated.