The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, the deletion of the limitation period, and the proviso allowing tribunals to condone delay in filing claim petitions.

JUDGMENT - MOHTA ANOOP V., J.: - Heard.

The present appeal has been filed by the original claimant No. 1/appellant herein, against the driver/original N.A. No. 1/respondent No. 1 herein, owner/original N.A. No. 2/respondent No. 2 herein, original N.A. No. 3/ respondent No. 3 herein/(Insurance Company) and made formal party to the original claimant No. 2/respondent No. 4 herein and thereby, challenged the judgment dated 29th March, 1986 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Akola (for short "Tribunal") in Motor Vehicle Case No. 45 of 1983, whereby the claim of the appellant was rejected on the ground of limitation. However, the claim of the original claimant No. 2 respondent No. 4 minor daughter of the deceased Arjun Shegokar was allowed.

2. One Arjun Ukarda Shegokar, husband of the appellant and father of the respondent No. 4, died on 2nd July, 1980 in motor accident at Akola. The vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 and driven by respondent No. 1. The vehicle was admittedly, insured with respondent No. 3. An application was filed under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1938 (for short "the Act") by the appellant and respondent No. 4 on 02-01-1981 initially, only against the respondent No. 1. This application was filed within limitation. Later on, by an amendment dated 18th April, 1983 the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were added as a party. The respondent No. 3 resisted the claim by filing its written statement. The basis objection was raised about the maintainability of such application as it was beyond limitation, as prescribed by, then existing provisions of the law, under section 110-A of the Act. The evidence was led by the parties. After considering the material as well as, evidence on the record the Tribunal by its judgment dated 29th March, 1986, awarded compensation in favour of the respondent No. 4 and rejected the claim of the appellant in toto. Admittedly, the basis application against the original non-applicant No. 1 was within limitation. The other contesting respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were added as party on 18-4-1982. However, it was held that the appellant was not entitled for the claim, as it was filed beyond prescribed limitation.

3. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant relies on 1996 A.C.J. 880 (Sadh Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and another)1, 1995 A.C.J. 739 (Radha Bai and others v. Suresh Pal and another)2, 1995 A.C.J. 673 (Wilfred v. N.A. Maniyar another)3, 1995 A.C.J. 784 (Hanja others v. Ram Kishan Ahir and others)4, and contended that rejection of the plaint by the learned Judge against the appellant is totally incorrect and cannot be said to be within the framework of law, as well as, fact itself.

4. The Motor Vehicles Act is undisputedly a welfare legislation. The purpose and object of the Act is always to extend all possible benefits available within the framework of the law to the victim, sufferer or injured person. The provisions of insurance policy under the Act, as well as, other connected Acts, cannot be overlooked. The respondent No. 3 Insurance Company have a definite role to pay in such matters. They are definitely entitled to raise their defence within the framework of the law. The Apex Court recently in A.I.R. 2004 S.C. 3884 : 2004 J.T. (Supp.) 483 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kiran Singh others)5, in reference to the Insurance Companies are concerned, observed as under :

"Insurance company must bear in mind that they are the trustee of the public. Keeper of the public, coffer. Often, even genuine claims are being hotly contested in a routine manner by dragging the parties to courts, wasting enormous time and money for the claimants to get their claims settled. The Act like Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial legislation aimed at quick redressal of the victims of accident arising out of the use of motor vehicles, the attitude routinely adopted by the insurance company would render the object of the Act frustrated."

5. There is no dispute that the original se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document