NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. C PADMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. R. Vedantham, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/insurance company.

(2.) THE revision is directed against the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/principal District Judge. Tirunelveli. in M. C. O. P. GL. No. 7455 of 1995 (Unnumbered M. C. O. P.) dated 9. 7. 1996. whereby the Tribunal has entertained the claim petition filed by the 1st respondent/claimant on 2. 11. 1995, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident that took place on 18. 2. 1989. THE Tribunal entertained the claim petition on 2. 11. 1995. the accident took place on 18. 2. 1989 i. e. , prior to the coming into force of the amended Motor Vehicles Act (Act 59 of 1988), which came into force with effect from 1. 7. 1989. THE Tribunal over-ruled the objection raised by the insurance company that the claim petition was wholly barred by limitation inasmuch as the claim petition has been filed only on 2. 11. 1995 in respect of the accident that took place on 18. 2. 1989, i. e. , nearly after six years and ten months from the date of the accident.

(3.) I am unable to countenance the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in view of the decision rendered by me on 29. 10. 1996 in C. R. P. Nos. 1820 of 1992 and 431 of 1996, following the recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in Dhannalal v. D. P. Vijayvargiya, 1996 (II) C. T. C. 143 : 1996 (4) S. C. C. , 652 : J. T. 1996 (5) S. C. , 6*01. . In that case, applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Vinod Gurudas raikar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , 1991, A. C. J. , 1060, the accident claim of the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 1820 of 1992 was originally rejected by me on 20. 9. 1996. On coming to know of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in dhannalal's case, 1996 (II) C. T. C. 143 I sno motu re-opened that case and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 1820 of 1992 and the learned counsel for the insurance company in C. R. P. No. 431 of 1996. which was directed by the insurance company against the order made in i. A. No. 539 of 1991 in M. C. O. P. S. R. No. 707 of 1991 on the file of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal/district Judge, Pudukkottai, condoning the delay of 213 days in filing the Motor Accident Claim Petition.