SUMAN ARJUN SHEGOKAR Vs. PRASAD GOPALRAO CHIRKURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been filed by the original claimant No. 1/appellant herein, against the driver/original N. A. No. 1/respondent No. 1 herein, owner/original N. A. No. 2/respondent No. 2 herein, original N. A. No. 3/ respondent No. 3 herein/ (Insurance Company) and made formal party to the original claimant No. 2/respondent No. 4 herein and thereby, challenged the judgment dated 29th March, 1986 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola (for short "tribunal") in Motor Vehicle Case No. 45 of 1983, whereby the claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground of limitation. However, the claim of the original claimant No. 2 respondent No. 4 minor daughter of the deceased Arjun Shegokar was allowed.

(2.) ONE Arjun Ukarda Shegokar, husband of the appellant and father of the respondent No. 4, died on 2nd July, 1980 in motor accident at Akola. The vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 and driven by respondent No. 1. The vehicle was admittedly, insured with respondent No. 3. An application was filed under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1938 (for short "the Act")by the appellant and respondent No. 4 on 02-01-1981 initially, only against the respondent No. 1. This application was filed within limitation. Later on, by an amendment dated 18th April, 1983 the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were added as a party. The respondent No. 3 resisted the claim by filing its written statement. The basis objection was raised about the maintainability of such application as it was beyond limitation, as prescribed by, then existing provisions of the law, under section 110-A of the Act. The evidence was led by the parties. After considering the material as well as, evidence on the record the tribunal by its judgment dated 29th March, 1986, awarded compensation in favour of the respondent No. 4 and rejected the claim of the appellant in toto. Admittedly, the basis application against the original non-applicant No. 1 was within limitation. The other contesting respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were added as party on 18-4-1982. However, it was held that the appellant was not entitled for the claim, as it was filed beyond prescribed limitation.

(3.) THE learned Advocate appearing for the appellant relies on 1996 A. C. J. 880 (Sadh Ram v. State of Himachat Pradesh and another), 1995 A. C. J. 739 (Radhabai and others v. Suresh Pal and another)2, 1995 A. C. J. 673 (Wilfredv. N. A. Maniyarand another), 1995 A. C. J. 784 (Hanja and others v. Ram Kishan Ahir and others), and contended that rejection of the plaint by the learned Judge against the appellant is totally incorrect and cannot be said to be within the framework of law, as well as, fact itself.