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

1991 Supreme(Raj) 590

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Milap Chandra Jain, J.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Nathu Singh and others - Respondent
S.B.C.M.A. No. 49 of 1990.
Decided On : 11-03-1991

The main legal point established is the applicability of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to accidents occurring before its coming into force, and the limitation of the award amount based on the relevant provisions.

Headnote:

Motor Vehicles Act - Applicability of Section 140 - The court held that the accident took place before the coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and thus the provisions of Section 92-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 were applicable, limiting the award to Rs. 15,000 instead of Rs. 25,000 under Section 140.

Fact of the Case:

The appeal was filed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which had ordered the appellant and others to make a payment of Rs. 25,000 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accident took place before the coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and thus the provisions of Section 92-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 were applicable, limiting the award to Rs. 15,000 instead of Rs. 25,000 under Section 140.

Issues: Applicability of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to the accident that occurred before its coming into force.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Section 92-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 were applicable to the accident, and not the provisions of Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, thereby limiting the award to Rs. 15,000.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was modified to limit the payment to Rs. 15,000 instead of Rs. 25,000.

JUDGMENT

1. - This appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Barmer, dated November 3, 1989 by which he has ordered the appellant and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to make payment of Rs. 25,000/-- under Section 140, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that an account-payee draft for Rs. 15,000/- has already been deposited in the Tribunal in compliance with the order dated February 22,1990. He further contends that admittedly the accident took place on October 31, 1988 before the coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with effect from July 1, 1989 and as such the Tribunal could not order for the payment of Rs. 25,0007- but could order only for the payment of Rs. 15,000/- as provided under Section 92A, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

3. No respondent has put his appearance despite sufficient service of the notice upon him.

4. It is clear from the claim petition that the accident took place on October 31, 1988 and the claim petition itself was filed on April 29, 1989. As such the provisions of Section 92-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 were applicable and not the provisions of Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Under the former provisions, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to award Rs. 15,000/- only and not Rs. 25,000/- to the claimants. As such the appeal deserves to be allowed.

5. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Banner, dated November 3, 1989 is modified to this extent. No order as to costs.Appeal 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