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

1967 Supreme(MP) 42

H.R.KRISHNAN
RAJU NARAYAN – Appellant
Versus
CHOGALAL BHAGIRATH AND ANR. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
J.P.Garg, R.S.Machalpur

H. R. KRISHNAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS appellant was knocked down by the motor car owned by respondent No. 1 and driven at that time by respondent No. 2. Probably because the appellant was unable to find put whether or not the vehicle had been insured against third-party claims he has not impleaded any insurance company. The Motor Accidents Claims tribunal to which this case is going back may. it is suggested, usefully investigate whether the vehicle had been insured, and if it has not been whether any action is called for against the owner; but that is another matter.

( 2 ) THE accident was on 17-2-1964 and the claim was presented before the tribunal on 8-5-1964, in other words, after 80 days. Since, however, only 60 days are allowed, the tribunal held that the claim was time barred. Certainly the claimant wanted condonation of the delay for "sufficient" cause which the Motor Vehicles Act itself has envisaged by providing that the time limit could be relaxed where the tribunal is satisfied of sufficient cause.

( 3 ) THE applicant's own account of the happening is as follows : He usually lives at mhow and was knocked down on the Mhow-Indore road on 17-2-1964. He became unconscious but a pol






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