Devinder Kumar Vs. Vinod

Devinder Kumar vs Vinod

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Jan 06, 1995

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/625162

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/625162
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Judge: Amarjeet Choudhary, J.
Decided On: Jan 06, 1995
Case Number: First Appeal From Order No. 1393 of 1992
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Appeal allowed

Case Summary

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

- ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Government contract: [Vijender Jain, C.J., Rajive Bhalla & Sury Kant, JJ] Government Contract Rejection of highest bid Challenge as to Held, State has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract. Its actions must be reasonable, fair and just in ...

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles
Outcome / disposition: Appeal allowed
Acts & sections: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166(3)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Devinder Kumar

Advocate R.S. Mittal, Sr. Adv. and; Tarun Jain, Adv.

Respondent

Vinod

Advocate C.B. Goel and; R.C. Chauhan, Advs.

Legal References

Acts: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166(3)
Cases Referred: In Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag and Ors. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors.
Reported In: I(1996)ACC107; 1995ACJ1069; (1995)110PLR650

Excerpt

.....statutory provisions or public duty, judicial review of such state action is inevitable. likewise, if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- consumer protection act, 1986 [c.a. no. 68/1986]. articles 14 & 300a: government contract noon-acceptance of highest bid held, it does not result in taking away right to property of highest bidder highest bid, per se, unless it is accepted by competent authority, and consequential sale certificate is issued, does not grant the highest bidder right to property of type which is protected under article 300a right to property is limited to confer highest bidder the right to challenge action of appropriate authority in refusing to accept highest or other bids. [air 1984 p&h 282 (fb) explained] articles 14 & 226: government contract rejection of highest bid held, highest bidder has locus standi to..........remained admitted upto 29,7,1991, the appellant was again admitted on 6.9.1991 and operation was again performed, on discharge the appellant was also advised physiotherapy at sir ganga ram hospital, new delhi. the claim was filed by the appellant through his father natural guardian on 17.1.1992. i am of the view that there was no negligence on the part of appellant's father which could be attributed to him. the first priority of the father must have been to provide treatment to his injured child and filing of claim application could be postponed being of secondary importance.4. in collector land acquisition anantnag and ors. v. mst. katiji and ors., a.i.r. 1987 s.c. 1353 the principles of disposal of application under section 5 of the limitation act have been enunciated. applying those principles to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is satisfied that the delay in filing the claim petition was not intentional. the father of the appellant (minor) could not file the claim petition due to condition of his son. consequently, this appeal is allowed, the order of the motor accidents claims tribunal, bhiwani dated 16.7.1992 is set aside and application under section 5 of the limitation act is allowed. the case is remanded to the motor accidents claims tribunal, bhiwani for decision on merits.5. the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the said tribunal on 16.2.1995.

Full Judgment

Amarjeet Choudhary, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by Devinder Kumar through Shri Khub Chand against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, dated 16.7.1992, dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition,

2. The appellant - claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, claiming compensation of Rupees five lacs on account of alleged injuries sustained by him in vehicular accident on 26.1.1991 and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by holding that there was no sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the claim petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved against the same, the claimant had filed the present appeal. After having heard the counsel for both the sides, I am of the considered view that the appellant had given sufficient reasons in the application under Section 5 of the limitation Act for condonation of delay. The grounds taken in the application are that the appellant was admitted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi for plastic surgery and skin grafting on 22.3.1991 and remained admitted there upto 15.4.1991. The appellant on discharge from the said hospital was called for review many times. The appellant had to go from Charkhi Dadri to Delhi and he must have been in pain due to injuries which resulted in loss of skin. The appellant was readmitted for second operation on 13.7.1991 and remained admitted upto 29,7,1991, The appellant was again admitted on 6.9.1991 and operation was again performed, On discharge the appellant was also advised physiotherapy at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. The claim was filed by the appellant through his father natural guardian on 17.1.1992. I am of the view that there was no negligence on the part of appellant's father which could be attributed to him. The first priority of the father must have been to provide treatment to his injured child and filing of claim application could be postponed being of secondary importance.

4. In Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag and Ors. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors., A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1353 the principles of disposal of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been enunciated. Applying those principles to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is satisfied that the delay in filing the claim petition was not intentional. The father of the appellant (minor) could not file the claim petition due to condition of his son. Consequently, this appeal is allowed, the order of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Bhiwani dated 16.7.1992 is set aside and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. The case is remanded to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani for decision on merits.

5. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the said Tribunal on 16.2.1995.

Same Court & Year Punjab and Haryana · 1995 Same Parties Devinder Kumar vs Vinod Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge Amarjeet Choudhary, J. Acts & Sections Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166(3)

Motor Vehicles