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

1971 Supreme(All) 130

SATISHCHANDRA, A.K.KIRTY
Komal Charan – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Gopal Behari, for Appellant; Standing Counsel, for Respondents.

Judgement

SATISH CHANDRA, J. :- The appellant was in 14th April, 1967, involved in an accident with a jeep car belonging to the State Government. On 25th September, 1967, he instituted a claim petition under Section 110-A. The Motor Vehicles Act, for compensation for the injuries received by him at the accident. The respondents contested the claim on various grounds. One of the pleas was of limitation. The District Judge, Bareilly, acting as the Claims Tribunal, framed a preliminary issue on the question of limitation.

2. The prescribed period of limitation for a claim petition at the relevant time was, 60 days from the date of the accident. The appellant moved an application supported by an affidavit for condonation of the delay. The tribunal below held that the claim petition was filed admittedly beyond time and the explanation for the delay was not sufficient. It rejected the application for condoning the delay; and, consequently, it rejected the claim petition also. Aggrieved, the claimant has come to this Court in appeal.

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that no appeal lay. Under Section 110, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, th


























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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top