NARAYAN LILLAHARE Vs. DINESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE obtaining factual matrix that has been innovatively exposited in the claim Petition No. 13/2006 which has spiralled to the passing of an award dated 11-10-2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balaghat (in short 'the tribunal') frescoes a picture which creates some sense of maze, may be due to deliberate ingenious attempt by the claimant or may be due to Everesting ambition that has an innocuous perception. Be that as it may, we proceed to adumbrate the facts.

(2.) THE claimant-appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant')initiated an action under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act') forming the subject-matter of Claim Case No. 103/2003 on the ground that he had met with an accident on 28-4-2003 as a result of which he had sustained grievous injuries. The Tribunal, as pleaded, determined the permanent disablement at 40% and awarded a sum of Rs. 89,000/- vide award dated 27-1. 1-2004.

(3.) THE claimant for the reasons best known to him, accepted the award in silence and chose not to prefer an appeal. The award was satisfied by the insurer on whom the liability was fastened. As the time rolled by, the claimant, as setforth, suffered further because of the injuries caused in the aforesaid accident and eventually there was amputation of left leg below the knee. This occurred between 14-10-2005 and 24-10-2005. As is evincible from the asseverations made, the claimant availed treatment at Nagpur. Because of this fall out, he preferred a second claim petition, Claim Case No. 13/2006, before the Tribunal putting forth a claim of Rs. 5,56,000/ -. The Tribunal upon hearing the parties came to hold that as an award had already been passed in respect of self-same accident, he had no jurisdiction to deal with the grievance and pass another award.