LAWS(KAR)-1992-2-35

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. LACHHA

Decided On February 24, 1992
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, BANGALORE Appellant
V/S
LACHHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two appeals preferred against the Judgment and award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City, on a claim petition presented under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short), one by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the allowing of the claim petition and another by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation, the following questions of law arise for consideration: (1) As the accident which gave rise to the cause of action for presenting the claim petition, had occurred on 3-4-1988 prior to the date of coming into force the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the 1988 Act' for short) on 1-7-1989, whether after that date the petitioner could file the claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 ('the 1939 Act' for short) which was in force on the date of the accident in force and consequently the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to condone the delay of more than six months in presenting the claim petition exercising its powers under Section 110-A(3) of the 1939 Act? (2) Though the accident, which gave rise to the cause of action for presenting the claim petition, had occurred on 3-4-1988, prior to the date on which the 1988 Act came into force, as the claim petition was presented after 1-7-1989 on which date the 1988 Act came into force, whether the Tribunal erred in not dismissing the claim petition on the ground that it was barred by Section 166(3) of the 1988 Act as it was presented after one year from the date of the accident?

(2.) Brief facts of the case, are these:(i) On 3-4-1988 when the claimant was crossing T.C.M. Royan Road near Ayyappaswamy temple in the City of Bangalore, a scooter bearing registration No. MYV 9473 insured with the appellant-National Insurance Company dashed against the claimant, as a result of which the claimant sustained grievous injuries resulting in permanent disability. It is not disputed that at that time the respondent-claimant had the right to present a claim petition under Section 110-A of the 1939 Act, which reads:

(3.) Before the Tribunal, the appellant-Insurance Company, raised a plea to the effect that the petition was barred by limitation. The claimant had filed an application for condonation of delay in presenting the claim petition. A reading of paragraph 8 of the Judgment indicates that though the Tribunal answered the second issue, which was to the effect whether the petition was barred by limitation, in the affirmative, actually the Tribunal considered the grounds put forward by the claimant for condonation of delay in presenting the claim petition and condoned the delay. Thus the Tribunal treated the petition as the one presented under Section 110-A of the Act and condoned the delay in presenting the petition, though it exceeded six months. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 49,400-00 together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit.