A SUBRARNANYESWARA RAO Vs. B MANIKYA SARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Kurnool in C.F.R. No. 1691/75 (un-registered Motor Vehicles O.P.) filed by the husband of the deceased, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the O.P. was properly presented?

(2.) The claimant filed the O.P. through his counsel. He was duly authorised by a vakalat. The learned District Judge held that having regard to Sec. 110-A (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a mere vakalat given by a party to a legal practitioner cannot clothe him with the right to act or present any papers on his behalf before the Tribunal without express permission from the Tribunal and as such, the presentation by the counsel cannot be deemed to be a valid presentation in the eye of law. He accordingly rejected the application.

(3.) Sec. 110-A (1) (c) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 authorises presentation of an application for compensation by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be. It may be stated at the outset that having regard to Rules 514, 515 and 520 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, in some courts, practice seems to have developed of insisting upon the claimants to file the application in person. These rules prior to their amendment in 1972 read as follows: