K UMAVATHAMMA Vs. G VENKATA CHALAPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved of not passing any order in I.A.No.1327 of 2003 filed under Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 under "No fault liability" in O.P. No.283 of 2003 filed under Secs. 140 and 166 of M.V.Act read with Rule 455 of the A.P. M.V. Rules, 1989, by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Anantapur, the claimants preferred this Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The brief facts that are necessary to dispose of this Civil Revision Petition are that the husband of the first petitioner herein and the father of other petitioners i.e. K.B. Venkata Sivanna, died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 6-1-2002 at about 3.00 p.m. near Yerraguntapalli (Tanakal) on Kadiri - Madanapalli Road. Claiming compensation, the petitioners herein filed OP No.283 of 2003 under Secs. 140 and 166 of M.V. Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P. M.V. Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.30,34,000/- before the learned Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Anantapur. The petitioners also filed IA No. 1327 of 2003 in the said O.P. under Sec. 140 of the M.V. Act, claiming Rs.50,000/- under the principle of no fault liability, pending disposal of the said claim petition.

(3.) When this matter was listed for admission, this court by order dt. 14-2-2005 directed the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Anantapur to explain the reasons as to why the interlocutory application filed under Sec. 140 of the M.V. Act was not disposed of, having regard to the submission of the petitioners' counsel that the petitioners 2 and 3 are studying M.Sc. and M.B.A. respectively, at Bangalore and the daughter i.e. 4th petitioner is of marriageable age. Non-disposal of the said interlocutory application by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Anantapur, has defeated the very object of Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which intends to provide immediate succour to the bereaved family. In such circumstances, the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Dist. Judge, Anantapur, was directed to explain the reasons for not disposing the I.A.