Binda Devi Vs. United Insurance Company Ltd. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. order1. heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. this appeal by the claimant appellant has been filed for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the tribunal in m.v. claim case no. 05 of 87/08 of 2003.3. the fact of the case is that on 20.10.1984, the deceased was going to his house from a grocery shop and as soon as he came to the road, a truck bearing registration no. bry 2928 coming in a very high speed dashed the deceased as a result of which he died. the appellant claimed rs. 1.20 lakhs as compensation. the tribunal has taken a very erroneous view that the liability of the insurance company is to the extent of rupees fifty thousand only and therefore awarded the said amount as compensation.4. according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is entitled to get compensation of rs. 1.20 lakh as claimed in the claim application and the insurance company is liable to pay the entire amount.5. having regard to the fact that the minimum liability of the insurance company is up to rupees to 1.50 lakh, the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to rs. 1.20 lakh (rupees on lakh and twenty thousand) as claimed by the appellant. the amount will carry interest as awarded by the tribunal. the insurance company will pay the amount by cheque to the claimant in the lok adalat to be held in the high court premises on 4th august, 2007.6. this appeal is disposed of.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal by the claimant appellant has been filed for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.V. Claim Case No. 05 of 87/08 of 2003.

3. The fact of the case is that on 20.10.1984, the deceased was going to his house from a grocery shop and as soon as he came to the road, a truck bearing Registration No. BRY 2928 coming in a very high speed dashed the deceased as a result of which he died. The appellant claimed Rs. 1.20 lakhs as compensation. The Tribunal has taken a very erroneous view that the liability of the insurance company is to the extent of rupees fifty thousand only and therefore awarded the said amount as compensation.

4. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the appellant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 1.20 lakh as claimed in the claim application and the insurance company is liable to pay the entire amount.

5. Having regard to the fact that the minimum liability of the insurance company is up to rupees to 1.50 lakh, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1.20 lakh (rupees on lakh and twenty thousand) as claimed by the appellant. The amount will carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The insurance company will pay the amount by cheque to the claimant in the Lok Adalat to be held in the High Court premises on 4th August, 2007.

6. This appeal is disposed of.