J.G.CHITRE
Chandrakant – Appellant
Versus
Mukesh – Respondent
J.G. Chitre, J. -- 1. Shri S. Patwa for appellant. Shri S.V. Dandvate for respondent No.4. Other respondents are absent. None present for them.
2. This application has been preferred for bringing the legal representatives of deceased claimant on record. During the course of argument it has been noticed by the learned counsel for the L.Rs. of deceased claimant that there has been delay in making the prayer for bringing the L.Rs. on record. He prays for condoning the said delay in view of recent amendment in provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M.V. Act for convenience). Shri Dandvate, counsel for respondent No.4 also admitted that there has been recent amendment in the provisions of M.V. Act whereby time limit of six months which was in existence previously has been removed in respect of filing of fresh application for getting the compensation. There cannot be any debate on the point that provisions of M.V. Act are benevolent and specially brought in force for the purpose of avoiding delay in getting the relief from civil Courts by filing other suitable remedies. Thus, keeping in view the benevolent aspect of the enactment and the recent amendment
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.