FAO No. 455 of 2007 and CMP (M) No. 1602 of 2014. Case: Talbe Ram Vs Pritu Devi. Himachal Pradesh High Court
| Case Number | FAO No. 455 of 2007 and CMP (M) No. 1602 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sanjeev Kuthiala and Ambika Kotwal, Advocates and For Respondents: Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate |
| Judges | Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J. |
| Issue | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166, 173 |
| Judgement Date | January 02, 2015 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh High Court |
Judgment:
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J.
FAO No. 455 of 2007
-
This appeal is directed against the award, dated 30th March, 2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 15/2006, whereby compensation to the tune of ` 2,02,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-appellant, herein and against the insured-owner-respondent No. 1, herein (for short, the "impugned award").
CMP (M) No. 1602 of 2014
-
The insured-owner has filed this limitation petition for condoning the delay of 7 years, 4 months and 6 days, which has crept-in, in filing the appeal, against the impugned award.
-
Before I deal with the main appeal, i.e. FAO No. 455 of 2007, I deem it proper to deal with the limitation petition.
-
In this limitation petition, it is averred that the impugned award is wrong to the extent of saddling the owner-insured with the liability. The liability was to be fastened upon the insurer-National Insurance Company, as the owner-insured has not committed any breach.
-
The applicant-insured-owner has not mentioned any ground for condoning the delay, right from the date of the impugned award, i.e. 30th March, 2007, till filing of the petition, i.e. 13th November, 2014, which has crept-in, in filing the appeal.
-
It came up for consideration before this Court on 21st November, 2014. After noticing the considerable delay, i.e. 7 years, 4 months and 6 days, which has crept-in, in filing the appeal, notices were issued to the respondents.
-
Respondent No. 1-insurer has contested the petition by filing objections, but respondent No. 2 & 3, i.e. the driver and the claimant, respectively, have not filed any objection.
-
In terms of the mandate of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", an appeal is to be filed within ninety days from the date of the award passed by a Claims Tribunal, It is apt to reproduce Section 173 of the Act herein:
173 Appeals.--(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court.
-
The owner was contesting the claim petition and was represented by Mr. O.P. Thakur, Advocate, before the Tribunal. She has not chosen to question the impugned award till...
To continue reading
Request your trial