1. On difference of opinion between Mufti AC. J & Kotwal J, this case has come up before me.

2. In a claims petition pending before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, a preliminary objection was raised about the maintainability of the petition on the ground of limitation and an issue was framed and the learned Tribunal vide impugned order before the Division Bench entertained the claims petition by condoning the delay in filing the petition after time. The tribunal also held that the claim petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the Claim petition within time. An appeal was filed against the said order dated 26-4-1977, when by the learned Tribunal entertained the petition for compensation, to this court. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent who was the Claim petitionery objection was raised by the effect that the order dated 26-4-1977 was not an award within the meaning of section 110-B of the Motor Vehicle Act, therefore, the appeal was not competent.

3. The learned Judges constituting the Division Bench have differed in their opinion and have relied on a Full Bench decision of this court titled Mohammad Yusuf and ors. Vs. Abdul Rahman Gujri and ors, AIR 1982 J & K 146. The said authority is interpreted by the two learned judges differently in support of their judgments. Learned

Acting Chief Justice held that the order impugned in the appeal was an award and was appealable while Kotwal J. held that it was not an award and was not appealable.

4. AIR 1982 J & K 146 (supra) by majority judgment has held that an order of the claims Tribunal refusing to set aside the order dismissing the claim petition for non-appearance of the claimant is not appealable as it was not an award. The minority view expressed by Mir J. was that it was an award and was appealable. The concurring Judges constituting the majority view in favour of the proposition that it was not an award and hence not appealable had given different reasons in support of their views.

5. The short point in this appeal is whether condoning delay in filing the petition before the Claims Tribunal would be an award and appealable under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is difference of opinion among various High Courts in this regard, therefore, it is required that divergence of opinion is discussed and correctness or otherwise of the opinions expressed in various judgments is pointed out. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Claims Tribunal entertained a Claims petition beyond the period of limitation by holding that the claim petitioner was prevented to make the petition within time for sufficient reasons will be an award within the meaning of Sec. 110-D of the Motor vehicles Act and is appealable. He has referred to Krishan Lal Trikha Vs. Jupiter General Insurance and others, AIR1977 J & K 90. A Division Bench of this court had held that order rejecting a claim petition on the ground that the same is barred by limitation would be an award and appealable u/s 110-D of the Act. In arriving at this finding, the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench laid emphasis as to whether decision would be determination and a judicial decision and held that there will be no difference between the claimants whose petitions are dismissed on merits and those whose petitions fail on some other ground and accordingly held that order of the Claims Tribunal rejecting a claim petition on the ground of limitation would be an award because it is determination of a claim. In G. Gopalaswami Vs. G Navalgnria and others, AIR 1967 Madras 403 it was held that decision of a Tribunal on an application for excusing delay in filing the application for compensation would be an award and would be appealable. In R. Govinderajubu Chetty Vs. M. I. A. Govindaraji Mudaliar and others. AIR 1966 Madras 382 it has been held that every decision of the Tribunal, dismissing a claim would be an award and would be appealable. In Capt. Komal C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document