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

2008 Supreme(Raj) 1047

2009(1) CCR 197 (Bom.)
(Bombay High Court)
Aurangabad Bench
M.R.R. Siddiqui Vs. Dy. Director of Health Services (Kumar, CJ.)
HON'BLE SWATANTER KUMAR, CJ.
HON'BLE P.V. HARDAS, J.
HON'BLE N.D. DESHPANDE, J.
Mohd. Riyazur Rehman Siddiqui
Versus
Deputy Director of Health Services & Ors.
Letters Patent Appeal No. 35 of 2005 With 1407 of 2006, decided on 25.09.2008

Advocates Appeared
M.M. Patil for M.B. Sabnis. for Appellant;
N.B. Khandare, for State;
P.R. Tandale, for Respondent

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sec. 173; C.P.C., Sec. 100-A (As amended in 2002); Letters Patent, Clause 15 — Maintainability of Second Appeal or Letters Patent Appeal — Held — A Letters Patent Appeal or Second appeal is not maintainable against the judgment rendered by Single Judge of High Court u/S. 173 of the M.V. Act. (Paras 61-63, 78, 86)

       Appeals dismissed.

        eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988] /kkjk 173( fl-iz-la-] /kkjk 100-d ¼2002 esa ;Fkk lakksf/kr½( ysVlZ isVsaV] [k.M 15 & f}rh; vihy ;k ysVlZ isVsUV vihy dh iks"k.kh;rk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & mPp U;k;ky; ds ,dy U;k;k/khk }kjk fn;s x;s fu.kZ; ds fo:) eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 173 ds rgr ysVlZ isVsaV vihy ;k f}rh; vihy iks"k.kh; ughaA ¼in la[;k 61 ls 63] 78] 86½

       vihy [kkfjt dhA

Judgment

Hon'ble KUMAR, C.J.—

Relevant Facts:

Mohd. Riyazur Rehman Siddiqui met with an accident on 30th September 1986 on Bidar-Udgir road while he was driving a motor-cycle No. MZV-6233. According to him, while he was driving the vehicle at a very moderate speed, the driver of jeep bearing No. MZV-6437 who was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently gave a dash to the motor-cycle and resultantly he sustained injuries. A case under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code was registered with the Police Station, Udgir. The Appellant resultantly of the accident sustained permanent disability to the extent of 48%. He filed a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being Case No. 26 of 1987 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur, which was contested and decided finally by the Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 5th May 1989 awarding compensation of Rs.51,000/- only with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the claim petition. This judgment of the Tribunal was impugned by the Claimant by filing First Appeal No.638 of 1989 before this Court praying for enhancement of the compensation awarded. The owner-driver of the jeep died on 16th July, 1987 during the pendency of the Claim Petition before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company had denied its liability and the present Appeal was only preferred against the Respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle. The Deputy Director of Health Services-original Respondent No.1, being owner of the jeep also preferred Appeal being First Appeal No. 637 of 1989 impugning the judgment of the Tribunal. First Appeal No.637 of 1989 was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide common judgment dated 12th February 2004. The Appeal filed by the Claimant (First Appeal No.638 of 1989) was partly allowed and the compensation was enhanced to Rs.56,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Dissatisfied from the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Claimant filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 35 of 2005 praying for further enhancement.

2. Civil Application No. 1407 of 2006 has been filed in Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) No. 20447 of 2006 for condonation of delay of 212 days caused in filing Letters Patent Appeal against judgment of the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 129 of 1998. There was no serious objection on behalf of the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents for condonation of delay in filing the present Appeal. We have perused the Application. Since sufficient cause for condonation of delay is shown, the Civil Application is allowed. The delay of 212 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. The Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. Registry to register and number the Letters Patent Appeal accordingly.

3. First Appeal No. 129 of 1998 was filed challenging judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalna. The Claimants therein are the dependents of deceased Kalyan Takale, aged 28 years, who died on 16th April 1995 due to injuries sustained in an accident arising out of use of motor vehicle which occurred on 15th April 1995. The accident occurred when motor-cycle No.MH-21 driven by the deceased was dashed by Taxi No. MH-20-A-7090 driven by Respondent No.1 in a rash or negligent manner. The taxi was owned by Respondent No.2 and was insured with Respondent No.3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalna by Judgment and Award dated 4th April 1997 directed Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (inclusive of no fault liability) to Claimants with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Judgment/Award of the Tribunal was challenged in First Appeal No. 129 of 1998 in which the learned Single Judge by Judgment and Award dated 25th January 2005 modified the Award by substituting figure of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lakhs) in place of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh). This Judgment/Award of the learned Single Judge is challenged by filing Letters Patent Appeal (Stamp) No. 20447 of 2005 by Claimants








































































































































































































































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