Back
2002 Supreme(All) 1211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Anjani Kumar, J.
SALIK RAM SINGH - Appellant
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 9202 Of 1999
Decided On : 09/10/2002
DEVENDRA DHAMA
The central legal point established is that the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal may approach the appellate side of the court as contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - JURISDICTION - The court held that the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal may approach the appellate side of the court as contemplated under the Act, dismissing the writ petition as not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a review application arising out of a motor accident claim petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petition was not maintainable as the claimant could approach the appellate side of the court as contemplated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the court over the writ petition and the maintainability of the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The legal position under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 allows the claimant to approach the appellate side of the court, rendering the writ petition not maintainable.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, and the interim order, if any, stood vacated. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the order dated 17. 2. 1997, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, passed by the Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Jaunpur in Review Application No. 21 of 1996, arising out of Motor accident Claim Petition No. 79 of 1995, decided on 10. 9. 1996.
( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length. It is clear from the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, that the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which is a special remedy, may approach provided under the Act which has been held to be social welfare legislation and statute prescribes the remedy of filing an appeal against the orders passed by the Tribunal or this Court. In this view of the matter petitioner, if feels aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, he may, if so advised, approach this Court on the appellate side as contemplated under the Act. This being the legal position, that writ petition deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable.
( 3 ) IN view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.
.
