Lakhpat Rai Vs. United India Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. thus,. in cases where the state or regional transport authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order.s.s. sodhi, j. 1. the appeal here is by the owner of the offending vehicle seeking to challenge the award of the tribunal in so far as it fastens liability upon him for compensation awarded. the compensation awarded was rs. 57,600, that payable by the insurance-company was fixed at rs. 50,000 and the remaining, that is, rs. 7,600, was held to be payable by the owner.2. the accident in the present case took place on june 24, 1981, at about 7 a.m. on the ludhiana-ferozepore road. man singh, deceased, was walking along the road side when he was run over and killed by the vehicle pug-9198, coming from behind. it was the finding of the tribunal, not challenged in appeal here, that this accident had been caused entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of nihal chand, the driver of the offending vehicle. as mentioned earlier, compensation awarded to the claimants, they being the parents, widow and son of man singh, deceased, was rs. 57,600.3. a reference to the material on record would show that though the insurance company had raised the plea that its liability was limited to rs. 50,000, the copy of the insurance policy, exhibit r/1, is an incomplete copy not containing all the conditions of the policy of insurance. on the face of it from this policy, it is not possible to hold that according to the terms thereof, the liability of the insurance company extended to only rs. 50,000 and not more. in this view of the matter, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the insurance company must be held to be liable for the entire amount awarded.4. the present appeal is consequently accepted to this extent. there will, however, be no order as to costs.