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

2023 Supreme(Ker) 108

AMIT RAWAL
Vijayan, S/o Sivaraman – Appellant
Versus
Manoj. K. , S/o Anandan B. K. – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.R.Nimod, M.A.Augustine
For the Respondent: Sri.Lal K.Joseph, SC

JUDGMENT :

Ext.P2 order dated 08.11.2022 of the MACT, Wayanad dismissing the two unnumbered claim petitions preferred for claiming compensation in respect of an accident occurred on 12.04.2022, being barred by the limitation, is under challenge in this original petition. It is contended that in the accident aforementioned, three passengers travelling in the car bearing registration No.KL-76-9140 died except a minor child and guardian, the petitioners herein. Petitions were filed under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and not under Section 166. Provisions of Section 166(3) Act for determining the limitation ought not come into play, otherwise also, the provisions of the limitation cannot be taken away in view of the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act.

2. Issue notice before admission. Learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

4. It would be appropriate to reproduce Section 164 and sub section 3 of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

    164. Payment of compensation in case of death or grievous hurt, etc.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other l

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