Swapnil Madhukar Ramade (Minor) Through His Mother Vs. Raja Ram Jagu Sahu and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/367342
SubjectInsurance;Motor Vehicles
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided OnFeb-21-2006
JudgeS.C. Dharmadhikari, J.
Reported inIV(2006)ACC685
AppellantSwapnil Madhukar Ramade (Minor) Through His Mother
RespondentRaja Ram Jagu Sahu and ors.
Excerpt:
- section 34: [d.k. deshmukh, s.j. vazifdar & j.p. devadhar, jj] court fee on petition under section 34 of the act bombay court fees act (36 of 1959), schedule i, article 3, schedule ii, article 1(f)(iii) held, according to article 3 of schedule i, on any plaint, application or petition or memorandum of appeal for setting aside or modifying an award, same court fee is payable as is payable on a plaint or memorandum of appeal under article 1. thus, when an award is challenged by a plaint, application, petition or memorandum of appeal, court fee is payable on ad valorem basis. but from this requirement of payment of court fee on ad valorem basis, article 3 excludes an application or petition or memorandum of appeal filed in civil or revenue court challenging any award made under the.....s.c. dharmadhikari, j.1. mr. kotak appearing for petitioner. he states that respondent no. 2, insurance company is contesting respondent and service is effected. he seeks time to place affidavit proving the same.2. affidavit to be filed within a period of one week from today.3. since the second respondent has received a copy of petition, along with its annexures with the communication of petitioner's advocate dated 11th february, 2006 and the order that i propose to pass, causing no prejudice to it, i am disposing of the present petition.4. application under section 140 preferred by petitioner has been rejected by the learned member of motor accident claims tribunal on the ground that the medical certificate is dated 12th april, 2004 whereas the injuries are of 3rd june, 2001. the court.....
Judgment:

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. Mr. Kotak appearing for petitioner. He states that respondent No. 2, Insurance Company is contesting respondent and service is effected. He seeks time to place affidavit proving the same.

2. Affidavit to be filed within a period of one week from today.

3. Since the second respondent has received a copy of petition, along with its annexures with the communication of petitioner's Advocate dated 11th February, 2006 and the order that I propose to pass, causing no prejudice to it, I am disposing of the present petition.

4. Application under Section 140 preferred by petitioner has been rejected by the learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the ground that the medical certificate is dated 12th April, 2004 whereas the injuries are of 3rd June, 2001. The Court has rejected the application because the latest position about injuries is not brought on record. Application is under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act which is for payment of compensation on the principle of no-fault liability. It is expected of the Tribunal to decide the matter considering the intent and purpose for which this provision is made. The order under challenge contains observations of the learned Member to the effect that the applicant has not made out a case of disability as contemplated by Section 140 read with Section 142 of M.V. Act. In my view the observations made, overlook the certificate and the contents thereof. Further, they overlook the intent and purpose of incorporating the provision of no-fault liability in the M.V. Act.

5. In these circumstances, interest of justice would be served if the order passed by the learned Member dated 1st October, 2004 is set aside and the application under Section 140 being Application Ext. 2 in Claim Application No. 156-A/2001 is restored to the file of learned Member for disposal afresh in accordance with law. The Trial Court shall endeavour and dispose of the said application within a period of four weeks from the date of production of copy of this order. Petition disposed of.