Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Girikanta Mahanta S/O- Hemkanta Mahanta – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the learned counsels for the respondents in the present batch of applications. This Court has also heard Mr. D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate who represents the Transport Department and the Home Department, of the Government of Assam and Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned counsel who was requested to assist this Court.
PREFACE
2. The present batch of Applications filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenge the various orders passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (for short, ‘the learned Tribunals’) constituted under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act of 1988’).
3. The Applicants herein who are the claimants in the claim proceedings are aggrieved by the orders rejecting their claim applications on the ground that Section 166 (3) of the Act of 1988 does not permit entertaining a claim application beyond a period of six months from the date of occurrence of accident whereas the Applicants who are Insurance Companies are aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Tribunals whereby the claims proceedings institute
The Claims Tribunal cannot entertain claims filed more than six months after an accident, as dictated by Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, ensuring strict procedural compliance.
(1) Motor accident – After lodging FIR and on receipt of information by insurance company, it would be duty of company to appoint a Nodal Officer and furnish intimation to State police, who shall coo....
The Motor Vehicles Act's amendment removing filing time limits for claims indicates that genuine cases should not be dismissed on procedural delays, reflecting Parliament's intent to support accident....
Point of Law : Benefit under Act, cannot be taken away on a technical aspect that too of limitation, thus, the Trial Court having applied Section 5 of Limitation Act to the fact situation, Court do n....
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal lacks the power to review its orders, and the vehicle involved in the accident was deemed fit under applicable rules.
Benefit of amendment of Section 166(3) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 whereby limitation for filing claim petition has been taken away is to be extended to cases where the dispute as to whether claim pe....
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not empower the Claims Tribunal to review its own awards, and the powers of a Civil Court conferred on the Tribunal do not extend to reviewing decisions.
Post-omission of limitation provisions in S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claim petitions reinstated for adjudication despite prior dismissal.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
