1. Challenge to High Court's order entertaining a claim petition following the deletion of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 225
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Vs.
RAMESH BHAI C. PATEL
Decided on February 7, 1997
Important Points
Procedural or technical objections should not frustrate the course of justice, and the omission of certain sections of the Motor Vehicles Act was intended to remove the bar of limitation for a claim petition.
Subject
Procedural Law - Appeals and Petitions
Act Referred
Headnote
Procedural Objections - Motor Vehicles Act - The court held that procedural or technical objections should not frustrate the course of justice and that the omission of certain sections of the Motor Vehicles Act was intended to remove the bar of limitation for a claim petition. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was deemed to be an appeal to the High court under Section 173 of the Act, and the benefit of the omission of the sections was granted to the claimants, allowing the claim petition to be entertained and decided on merits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner raised objections regarding the relief granted by the High court in entertaining the claim petition due to the deletion of certain sections of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner also argued that there was a limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 173 which had expired.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the procedural and technical objections raised by the petitioner should not frustrate the course of justice. It deemed the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to be an appeal to the High court under Section 173 of the Act and granted the benefit of the omission of the sections to the claimants, allowing the claim petition to be entertained and decided on merits.
Issues: Procedural and technical objections raised by the petitioner, the effect of the omission of certain sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the interpretation of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution as an appeal to the High court under Section 173 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Procedural or technical objections should not frustrate the course of justice. The omission of certain sections of the Motor Vehicles Act was intended to remove the bar of limitation for a claim petition. The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was deemed to be an appeal to the High court under Section 173 of the Act, and the benefit of the omission of the sections was granted to the claimants, allowing the claim petition to be entertained and decided on merits.
Final Decision: The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petition under Article 227 cannot be treated as an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, especially where the limitation period has expired. (Para 1 )
3. Procedural objections should not frustrate justice; the omission of Section 166(3) intended to remove the limitation bar for claim petitions. (Para 2 )
4. A petition under Article 227 may be deemed an appeal under Section 173 to grant the benefit of the removal of limitation bars under Section 166(3). (Para 2 )
5. Special leave petition disposed of; High Court's order to entertain and decide the claim petition on merits is sustained. (Para 2 , 3 )
6. What was the purpose of omitting Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act?
The object of omitting Section 166(3) of the Act was to remove the bar of limitation for a claim petition. (Para 2 )
7. Can a petition under Article 227 be treated as an appeal under Section 173 to benefit from the removal of limitation bars?
Yes, the court held that a petition under Article 227 can be deemed an appeal under Section 173, allowing for the condonation of delay and the benefit of the omission of Section 166(3). (Para 2 )
8. How should courts treat procedural or technical objections in the context of removing limitation bars for claim petitions?
The court held that mere procedural or technical objections should not frustrate the course of justice, especially when the legislative intent is to remove the bar of limitation. (Para 2 )
( 1 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief granted by the High court of entertaining the claim petition in view of the deletion of Ss. (3 of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act could not have been given in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. He submits that only an appeal in the High court under Section 173 of the Act could have been treated as a pending matter in which the benefit of deletion of Ss. (3 of Section 166 of the Act could have been given. He alsosubmits that there is a limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 173 which had expired and this presented a further difficulty in the present case.
( 2 ) IN our opinion, these are mere procedural or technical objections which should not frustrate the course of justice. The object of omitting Ss. (3 of Section 166 of the Act to remove the bar of limitation for a claim petition is obvious. This being so, a matter which was pending in the High court when this change was brought about, should be governed by the effect of omission of Ss. (3 of Section 166. In the present case, the petition under Article 22,7 of the Constitution is deemed to be an appeal to the High court under Section 173 of the Act and condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the benefit of omission of Ss. (3 of Section 166, is granted to the claimants. The High courts order directing the claim petition to be entertained and decided on merits is sustained on this basis.
( 3 ) THE special leave petition is disposed of accordingly. court Masters
