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

1981 Supreme(Ker) 69

BALAKRISHNA MENON, GEORGE VADAKKEL, P.SUBRAMONIAN POTI
PONNAMMA PILLAI – Appellant
Versus
NAMBI – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. The appellant filed an application under S. I10-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Act). Since it was time-barred he also filed an application to condone the delay. The Claims Tribunal refused to excuse the delay and consequently dismissed the main application. This appeal is from the decision on the main application.

2. Respondents have raised a preliminary objection that no appeal lies from the above said decision since, according to them, that decision does not amount to an award as mentioned in S.110-B and 110-D of the Act. The contention is two-fold: (i) the Claims Tribunal, having dismissed the condonation-application, has not entertained the main application; and (ii) the Claims Tribunal has not made an award determining the amount of compensation.

3. S.110-A(3) reads:-"110-A Application for compensation

xx xx xx xx

(3) No application for compensation under this section shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident:

Provided that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of six months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from mak





























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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top