BANAMALI SAHU Vs. GOLAK CHANDRA NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN award of the learned Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Cuttack (in short, 'the Tribunal') is assailed in this appeal under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (in short, 'the said Act').

(2.) THE appellant suffered injuries in an accident on 5.1.1982. According to the case of the claimant, two trucks bearing registration Nos. ORM 1163 and OSC 9761 were driven in a very negligent manner. Suddenly the first vehicle moved to the left side and dashed against the claimant from his back side as a result of which he sustained severe injuries on his head, face and other parts of the body. He had to undergo treatment at the hospital. The claim lodged by the claimant was for Rs. 80,000/ -. The insurer of both the vehicles was New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the insurer'). The owners of both the vehicles were impleaded in the claim application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the claimant had suffered several injuries and was entitled to compensation which was quantified at Rs. 12,000/ -. However, the Tribunal refused to direct payment of the quantified amount on the ground that the claim application was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

(3.) A party is entitled to challenge any ex parte conclusion of the Tribunal in the matter of delay in making the claim. Even if there has been condonation before appearance of the parties the question of limitation can be agitated after the parties appear and the Tribunal is bound to decide that question once it is raised. This proposition flows from the right of a party to urge his side of the case when a proper opportunity is afforded to him. The tentative decision of the Tribunal while issuing notice on the question of limitation is not final and it is open to be challenged by the opposite parties when they are given the notice. A similar view was expressed by this court in Hemalata Devi v. Sk. Lokrnan 1973 ACJ 257 (Orissa).