Dev Karan Vs. Suresh Kumar and ors.

Dev Karan vs Suresh Kumar and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Aug 08, 2005

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/512092

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/512092
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: N.K. Mody, J.
Decided On: Aug 08, 2005
Subject: Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Insurance;Motor Vehicles

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dev Karan

Respondent

Suresh Kumar and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya
Reported In: III(2006)ACC94; 2006(1)MPLJ288

Excerpt

- ordern.k. mody, j.1. being aggrieved by the award dated 20.12.2002 passed by mact, indore in claim case no. 10/2002, whereby claim petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed, the present appeal has been filed.2. short facts of the case are that the appellant filed claim petition alleging that on 13.2.1991, an accident took place in which appellant sustained permanent injuries. the claim petition was registered as 10/2002. the allegations were made in the petition denied by the respondents. it was also alleged that since the accident has taken place on 13.2.1991 and claim petition is filed on 6.2.2002, therefore, the claim petition was not maintainable. it was also prayed that petition be dismissed on account of non-maintainability. on the basis of the pleadings by the parties learned tribunal framed the issues. issue no. 4 was to the effect that whether the claim filed after 11 years is not maintainable. after hearing the parties the learned tribunal has held that claim petition has been filed after the amendment in the motor vehicles act, 1994, and since the accident has taken place prior to amendment of the act, therefore, the claim petition is not maintainable.3. learned counsel for the appellant submits that accident took place on 13.2.1991, and at the time of accident the motor vehicles act, 1988 was in force. according to section 66 of the motor vehicles act the claim petition was filed within six months from the date of accident or within a period of 12 months, after showing the sufficient ground for delay in filing the application. it was submitted that in the year 1994 section 166 of motor vehicles act has been amended and application for compensation can be filed at any time. it is submitted that in the case of dhannalal v. d.p. vijayvargiya reported in i (1996) acc 603 (sc) : i (1996) acc 603 (sc) : 1996 jlj 528, wherein the hon'ble apex court observed that the effect of the amending act is that with effect from 14.11.1994, there is no limitation.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

N.K. Mody, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 20.12.2002 passed by MACT, Indore in Claim Case No. 10/2002, whereby claim petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed, the present appeal has been filed.

2. Short facts of the case are that the appellant filed claim petition alleging that on 13.2.1991, an accident took place in which appellant sustained permanent injuries. The claim petition was registered as 10/2002. The allegations were made in the petition denied by the respondents. It was also alleged that since the accident has taken place on 13.2.1991 and claim petition is filed on 6.2.2002, therefore, the claim petition was not maintainable. It was also prayed that petition be dismissed on account of non-maintainability. On the basis of the pleadings by the parties learned Tribunal framed the issues. Issue No. 4 was to the effect that whether the claim filed after 11 years is not maintainable. After hearing the parties the learned Tribunal has held that claim petition has been filed after the amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994, and since the accident has taken place prior to amendment of the Act, therefore, the claim petition is not maintainable.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that accident took place on 13.2.1991, and at the time of accident the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was in force. According to Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act the claim petition was filed within six months from the date of accident or within a period of 12 months, after showing the sufficient ground for delay in filing the application. It was submitted that in the year 1994 Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act has been amended and application for compensation can be filed at any time. It is submitted that in the case of Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya reported in I (1996) ACC 603 (SC) : I (1996) ACC 603 (SC) : 1996 JLJ 528, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the effect of the amending act is that with effect from 14.11.1994, there is no limitation for filing claims before the Tribunal in respect of any accident.

4. In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.12.2002 is hereby set aside passed in Claim Case No. 10/2002. Parties are directed to remain present before the Tribunal on 15.9.2005. Record of the Tribunal be sent back immediately. Learned Tribunal is directed to dispose of the case afresh at the earliest possible.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2005 Same Parties Dev Karan vs Suresh Kumar and ors. Same Subject Insurance;Motor Vehicles Same Judge N.K. Mody, J.

Insurance;Motor Vehicles