SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Pat) 130

HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Gurusharan Sharma, J.
Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Gulzari Kuer and others – Respondents
M.A. No. 313 of 1998
Decided on : 19.2.1999

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants: Mr. Ajay Kumar.
For the Respondents 1 and 2: M/s. Ravi Shankar Sahay, Aditya Nath Jha and Raj Kumar Sinha.

An application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is an interlocutory matter in a proceeding under Section 166, and cannot be maintained in the absence of a regular proceeding under Section 166.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act - Application under Section 140 - Interim relief and regular proceeding under Section 166 - Court held that a proceeding instituted on an application under Section 140, in absence of a regular proceeding under Section 166, was not maintainable. Impugned order and interim award set aside.

Fact of the Case:

Widow and three sons filed an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, without filing a claim case under Section 166 of the Act. Insurance company stated that the application under Section 140 was not maintainable without a claim application under Section 166.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the proceeding instituted on an application under Section 140, in absence of a regular proceeding under Section 166, was not maintainable. The impugned order and interim award were deemed illegal and without jurisdiction, and were set aside.

Issues: Validity of an application under Section 140 without filing a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under the scheme of the Act, pending final hearing and disposal of claim application under Section 166, the claimant has been given liberty to obtain interim relief, i.e., grant of interim compensation on an interlocutory application under Section 140 of the Act.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order and interim award were set aside.

ORDER :

Heard the parties, perused the records and with their consent this appeal is disposed of under ORDER :41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. It appears that widow and three sons of late Sheo Badan Chaudhary @ Ballar of village-Bahmara, Distirct-Kaimur (Bhabhua) filed an application purporting to be under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the District Judge Bhabhua. On the said application M.V. Claim Case No. 94 of 1997 was registered. At this stage it is made clear that the aforesaid persons did not file a claim case under Section 166 of the Act, rather filed only an application under Section 140 of the Act. It was specifically stated in column no. 23 at page 7 of the application that the claimants reserved right to file an application under Section 166 of the Act. In the rejoinder dated 2.5.1998 filed on behalf of Insurance Company it was stated that the said application under section 140 of the Act was not maintainable. Unless a claim application under section 166 of the Act was filed, claiming compensation under the Act, merely an application purporting to be under Section 140 was not to be entertained. A prayer under section 140 is an interlocutory matter, in a proceeding under section 166 of the Act. According to scheme of the Act, pending final hearing and disposal of claim application under section 166, the claimant has been given liberty to obtain interim relief, i.e., grant of interim compensation on an interlocutory application under Section 140 of the Act.

3. In the aforesaid circumstances, I find that the proceeding, vide M.V. claim Case No. 94 of 1997, instituted on an application purporting to be under Section 140, in absence of a regular proceeding under section 166 of the Act was not maintainable. Accordingly the impugned ORDER :and interim award are illegal and without jurisdiction. It is, accordingly, set aside. In the result, this appeal is allowed.


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top