SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/508320 |
Subject | Motor Vehicles;Limitation |
Court | Madhya Pradesh High Court |
Decided On | Sep-24-1994 |
Case Number | M.A. No. 164 of 1993 |
Judge | Tej Shankar, J. |
Reported in | 1995ACJ235 |
Appellant | Vijay Singh |
Respondent | Lakchhman Singh Parihar and ors. |
Appellant Advocate | Mahesh Haswani, Adv. |
Respondent Advocate | V.K. Sharma, Adv. |
Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988
[c.a. no. 59/1988]section 147; [a.k. patnaik, cj, s.s. jha & a.m. sapre, jj] liability of insurer - third party insurance held, the insured who is a party to the insurance is not a third party for the purpose of chapter xi of the act, particularly section 147 thereof. thus, any person other than the insurer and the insured who are parties to the insurance policy is a third party. the insurer, however, would not be liable for any bodily injury or death of a third party in an accident unless the liability is fastened on the insurer under the provisions of section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. hence, the mere fact that a passenger is a third party would not fasten liability on the insurer unless such liability arises under section 147 of the act or under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. an employee is a third party inasmuch as he is not a party to the insurance policy. but merely because an employee is a third party, the insurance company would not be liable to compensate in case such employee suffers bodily injury or dies in an accident in which the motor vehicle is involved unless section 147 of the act fixes such liability on the insured or unless the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance fixes liability on the insurer. section 147 (1)(b) of the act provides that in order to comply with the requirements of chapter xi of the act, a policy of insurance must be a policy which insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2) against the liabilities mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) thereunder. even if an employee is a passenger or a person travelling in a motor vehicle which is insured as per the requirements of sub-section (1) of section 147 of the act, the insurer will not be liable to cover any liability in respect of death or bodily injury of such employee unless such employee falls in one of the categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c)of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1)of section 147 of the act and further in cases where such employees fall under categories mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (i) of the proviso to sub-section (1`) of section 147 of the act, the insurer is liable only for the liability under the workmens compensation act, 1923. [national insurance co. ltd. v sarvanlal, 2004 (4) mpht 404 (d.b) overruled].
sections 147 & 96 & m.p. m.v. rules, 1994, rule 97; [a.k. patnaik, cj, s.s. jha & a.m. sapre, jj] control of transport vehicles m.p. rules relate to provisions of control of transport vehicles and it cannot be adopted for interpreting sections 147 and 145 of the m.v. act to hold the insurer liable for death or bodily injury suffered by passenger. [national insurance co. ltd. v sarvanlal, 2004 (4) mpht 404 (d.b) overruled].tej shankar, j.1. counsel heard.2. there is an application under section 5 of the limitation act for condonation of delay. the ground alleged is that the appeal had to be filed upto 3.9.1993, but the lawyers were on strike from 19.8.1993 to 21.9.1993 and as such, the appeal could not be filed.3. learned counsel for the respondent contested the application and argued that the appeal could have been filed, because the registry of the high court was working. there is no explanation as to why the appeal was not filed.4. i have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel before me. the mere fact that the lawyers were on strike cannot be said to be sufficient ground for not filing the appeal within time. the learned counsel could have prepared the appeal at home and sent the memorandum for filing it through his client, i.e., the party. the party should have brought and filed it with the registry. the registry was functioning. there is, therefore, absolutely no ground for not filing the appeal within time. the application under section 5 of the limitation act is, therefore, rejected and the appeal is dismissed as barred by time.
Judgment:Tej Shankar, J.
1. Counsel heard.
2. There is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The ground alleged is that the appeal had to be filed upto 3.9.1993, but the lawyers were on strike from 19.8.1993 to 21.9.1993 and as such, the appeal could not be filed.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent contested the application and argued that the appeal could have been filed, because the Registry of the High Court was working. There is no explanation as to why the appeal was not filed.
4. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel before me. The mere fact that the lawyers were on strike cannot be said to be sufficient ground for not filing the appeal within time. The learned Counsel could have prepared the appeal at home and sent the memorandum for filing it through his client, i.e., the party. The party should have brought and filed it with the Registry. The Registry was functioning. There is, therefore, absolutely no ground for not filing the appeal within time. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is, therefore, rejected and the appeal is dismissed as barred by time.