Back
2000 Supreme(MP) 129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR BENCH)
D.P.S. Chauhan, Ag. C.J. and Rajeev Gupta, J.
Ram Khilawan Verma
Vs.
Rikhiram and Ors.
Misc. Appeal No. 200/2000
Decided On: 11.02.2000
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: H.S. Patel, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to claim cases before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Headnote:
Order 23 Rule 1 - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - The court rejected the claim petition on the ground that provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to claim cases, and the appellant was not entitled to maintain a fresh claim case after withdrawing the earlier claim petition.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant appealed against the rejection of the claim petition by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, arguing that Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure should not apply to claim cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable to the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and therefore, the submission had no substance. The appeal was rejected.
Issues: The main issue was whether the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to claim cases before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation that the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable to the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Final Decision: The appeal was rejected as the court found that the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to claim cases before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
D.P.S. Chauhan, Ag. C.J.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 23-9-99 passed in Claim Case No. 97/97 by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur rejecting the claim petition on the ground that in claim cases provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable.
2. Heard learned counsel Shri H.S. Patel.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not apply in the claim cases and the fact that earlier the appellant withdrew claim petition was of no consequence and he was entitled to maintain a fresh claim case.
4. The Claims Tribunal considered this aspect of the matter in Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the impugned order. According to Rule 240 of the Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Rules, 1994, which is as extracted below :
^^240- nkok vf/kdj.k }kjk tkp djus esa viuk;h tkus okyh izf;k & flfoy izf;k lafgrk 1908 ds dfri; mica/kksa dh iz;qf bl vf/kfu;e ;k bu fu;eksa esa vU;Fkk vfHkO; :i ls tSlk vU;Fkk micaf/kr gS] ds flok; flfoy izf;k lafgrk] 1908 1908 dk la- 5 dh izFke vuqlwph ds fuEufyf[kr mica/k vFkkZr~ tks vkns'k ikp] fu;e 9 ls 13 rFkk 15 ls 20 vkns'k ukS] vkns'k rsjg fu;e 3 ls 10] vkns'k lksyg] fu;e 2 ls 21] vkns'k l=g] vkns'k bDdhl rFkk vkns'k rsbZl fu;e 1 ls 3 esa vUrfoZ"V gS] nkok vf/kdj.k ds le{k dh dk;Zokfg;ksa ij ykxw gksaxs tgk rd fd os mudks ykxw gksrs gksaA**
The provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure have been made applicable to the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
5. In view of above, the submission has no substance.
6. The appeal is sans substance. It is accordingly rejected.
