2000 Supreme(Raj) 1381
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
J.C.Verma, J.
Gajanand - Appellant
Versus
Ram Pratap - Respondent
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 750 of 1996.
Decided On : 21-08-2000
Compliance with mandatory provisions for depositing an amount is essential for the admission of an appeal, as established by previous judgments.
Headnote:
Limitation Act - Appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award - Failure to comply with mandatory provisions for depositing amount - Appeal listed on defect side
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, filed an appeal against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal with a delay of 326 days, along with an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal could not be entertained for admission as the mandatory provisions for depositing an amount were not complied with, as required by the law laid down in previous cases.
Issues: The issues revolved around the delay in filing the appeal, the failure to comply with mandatory provisions for depositing an amount, and the violation of previous judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of complying with mandatory provisions for depositing an amount as required by law, and the consequences of failing to do so.
Final Decision: The court ordered the appeal to be listed on the defect side and called for an explanation from the concerned officer regarding the unauthorized entertainment of the appeal without the required deposit.
JUDGMENT
1. - This appeal against the award dated 26.5.95 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem ka Thana has been preferred by the appellant non claimant, who was owner of the vehicle which had caused accident.
2. Initially the appeal was filed with the delay of 326 days along with the application under section 5 of Limitation Act. The delay was not condoned on 22.7.96 as he reasons mentioned in the application were not accepted. However, the appellant was given an opportunity to file another application explaining the delay. The another application mentioning certain details about the delay had been filed on 1.8.96.
3. The notice was issued to respondent of the appeal as well as the application under section 5 of Limitation Act.
4. Mr. Dhand is appearing on behalf of claimant. He has taken an objection that in view of the law laid down by this court in cases reported in 1994(2) WLC 726 and 1994(2) WLC 749 the appeal cannot be entertained for admission unless the mandatory provisions are complied with the depositing an amount Rs. 25,000/- or 50% of the amount of award, whichever is less. It is not disputed that no such amount has been deposited by the appellant. For the reasons mentioned above the Registry was not authorised to entertain the appeal and the appeal as such is to be listed on defect side,
5. It shall be necessary in this case to call for the explanation of the concerned officer as to how without deposit of Rs. 25,000/- or 50% of the amount of award the present appeal had been entertained and that too in violation of the aforesaid judgments of this case. The explanation be submitted within two weeks.
6. The stay order, if any, granted in favour of appellant shall stand vacated.
7. The registry to proceed accordingly and treat this appeal on defect side.Order accordingly.
*******
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
