UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. Vs. BHAGIRATH VISHWAKARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only point raised in this appeal is whether the order passed u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act by way of interim award, on the basis of no fault liability could not be passed because the petition u/s 166 of the said Act, as a whole was barred by time, being beyond one year of the accident.

(2.) THE Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Damoh vide order dated 12.11.94 held that the petition u/s 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act was barred by time. It had been filed on 7.5.93, while the accident and death occurred on 30.4.93 and the statute provides a bar against the condonation of delay. The deceased was wife of Bhagirath Vishwakarma Claimant No. 1 and the mother of Babli, minor, claimant No. 2 who was only aged about 5 years. The Tribunal observed that certain provisions have been made under the Motor Vehicles Act for condoning the delay in filing the petition upto six months after the expiry of the prescirbed period of six months' limitation, therefor. No further time for condonation of delay on the principles of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act could be granted. However, it observed that the petition of Bhagirath Vishwakarma was barred by time and the petition on behalf of Babli, minor was also barred by time, though Babli herself, after becoming major, within six months, could file her own petition to claim compensation. The tribunal also observed that for 'no fault liability' u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no limitation has been prescribed and that it was not essential that a petition for that purpose should be separately filed and that such an order could be passed by the Tribunal suo -motu. The Tribunal, therefore, while dismissing the main petition, allowed the interim award of Rs. 25,000/ -.

(3.) LEARNED counsel has asserted that the main petition was barred by time and the order under Sec. 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act could not and should not be passed, as it would amount to allowing the petition partly which is barred by time.