CHANDRAKANT SONI Vs. MUKESH SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (On I. A. No.4763/95) Sbri S. Patwa for Appellant. Shri S.V. Dandvate for Respondent No.4. Other respondents are absent. None present for them.

(2.) This application has been preferred for bringing the legal representatives of deceased claimant on record. During the course of argument it has been noticed by the learned counsel for the L.Rs. of deceased claimant that there has been delay in making the prayer for bringing the L.Rs. on record. He prays for condoning the said delay in view of recent amendment in provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act for convenience). Shri Dandvate, counsel for respondent No.4 also admitted that there has been recent amendment in the provisions of M.V. Act whereby time limit of six months which was in existence previously has been removed in respect of filing of fresh application for getting the compensation. There cannot be any debate on the point that provisions of M.V. Act are benevolent and specially brought in force for the purpose avoiding delay in getting the relief from Civil Courts by filing other suitable remedies. Thus, keeping in view the benevolent aspect of the enactment and the recent amendment by which the previously indicated time limit of six months has been removed, I hereby condone the delay of nine months by keeping in view the special circumstances of this matter only.

(3.) The second point which has been agitated is whether the appeal arising out of a controversy created by the award passed by the Tribunal stands abated on account of death of claimant or not. Shri Patwa has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter of Chuharmal Issardas v. Haji Wali Mohammed, 1968 ACJ 391, judgment of Bombay High Court in the matter of Maimuna Begum v. Taju, 1988 ACJ 417 and judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of New Suraj Transpert Co. v.Ruby General Insurance Co., 1972 ACJ 416. He canvassed that provisions of O.22, C.P.C. are not applicable to appeals arising out of the controversy caused by the award passed by the Tribunal in motor accident claim cases. Shri Dandvate, counsel appearing for respondent No.4 insurance company placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of Melapurath Sankunni Ezhuthassan v. Thekittil Geopalakutty Nair, 1986 ACJ 440 : (AIR 1986 SC 411).