Ashok Kumar Gaur and ors. Vs. the M.A.C.T. and anr.

Ashok Kumar Gaur and ors. vs The M.A.C.T. and anr.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 17, 2003

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/762951

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/762951
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Ashok Parihar, J.
Decided On: Jul 17, 2003
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4850 of 2000
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashok Kumar Gaur and ors.

Advocate Sanjay Mehrishi, Adv.

Respondent

The M.A.C.T. and anr.

Advocate Shailesh Prakash Sharma

Legal References

Acts: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227
Cases Referred: Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
Reported In: RLW2004(1)Raj185; 2003(4)WLC742

Excerpt

- parihar, j.1. in a claim petition filed before the motor accident claims tribunal, kota, ex parte proceedings were drawn against the petitioners on 29.11.1995. thereafter, an award was passed by the tribunal on 4.6.1999 thereby allowing a claim of rs. 2 lacs in favour of the respondent-claimant.(2). an application for setting aside ex parte award was filed before the tribunal on 25.8.2000 along with an application under section 5 of the limitation act for condoning the delay. both the applications were dismissed by the tribunal vide order dated 29.9.2000. hence, the present writ petition, challenging not only the award dated 4.6.1999 but also the order dated 29.9.2000.(3). after hearing counsel for the parties, i have carefully gone through the material on record as also the impugned award and the order.(4). the tribunal, while rejecting the application for setting aside ex parte proceedings, has given detailed reasons for not accepting the application under section 5 of the limitation act as also for restoration. the reasons given by the petitioners for not appearing before the tribunal are also contradictory and do not gather any confidence of even this court. after having considered entire facts and circumstances of the present case, i find no ground for any further interference of this court in the present writ petition. even otherwise, as per recent judgment of supreme court in case of 'sadhana lodh v. national insurance co. ltd. and anr. (1)' transport and accidents cases page 26), writ petitions under article 226/227 of the constitution are not maintainable in such matters. accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having no merit.

Full Judgment

Parihar, J.

1. In a claim petition filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota, ex parte proceedings were drawn against the petitioners on 29.11.1995. Thereafter, an award was passed by the Tribunal on 4.6.1999 thereby allowing a claim of Rs. 2 lacs in favour of the respondent-claimant.

(2). An application for setting aside ex parte award was filed before the Tribunal on 25.8.2000 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. Both the applications were dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 29.9.2000. Hence, the present writ petition, challenging not only the award dated 4.6.1999 but also the order dated 29.9.2000.

(3). After hearing counsel for the parties, I have carefully gone through the material on record as also the impugned award and the order.

(4). The Tribunal, while rejecting the application for setting aside ex parte proceedings, has given detailed reasons for not accepting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as also for restoration. The reasons given by the petitioners for not appearing before the Tribunal are also contradictory and do not gather any confidence of even this court. After having considered entire facts and circumstances of the present case, I find no ground for any further interference of this court in the present writ petition. Even otherwise, as per recent judgment of Supreme Court in case of 'Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. (1)' Transport and Accidents Cases page 26), writ petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution are not maintainable in such matters. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having no merit.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2003 Same Parties Ashok Kumar Gaur and ors. vs The M.A.C.T. and anr. Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge Ashok Parihar, J. Acts & Sections Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5; ...

Motor Vehicles