Advocates:
['MALAY KUMAR BHADURI', '', 'SAREENA KHAN', 'ALOK KUMAR GUPTA']

-1-

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

MAC No. 919 of 2016

1. M/s Shrikishan & Company through Proprietor, Sushil Agrawal, aged

about 47 years, S/o Late Shri Kishan Agrawal, R/o S-1, Shri Complex,

Stadium Road, T.P.Nagar Korba, Tahsil and P.S. Korba, Distt. Korba

(C.G.) ........... (Non-Applicant No.2)

---- Appellant

Versus

1. Vijay Kumar Patel S/o Shri Gendram Patel, aged about 19 years, R/o

Village Jatraj Chandranagar, Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba,

Next Friend Gendram Patel, aged about 48 years, S/o Shri Santram

Patel, R/o Village Jatraj Chandranagar, Kusmunda, Tahsil Katghora,

District Korba, Chhattisgarh....(Claimant)

2. Rajesh Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Harischandra Singh, aged about 30

years, R/o Old Basti Rani Road, Korba, Tahsil and District Korba,

Chhattisgarh.......(Non Applicant No. 1 (Driver))

3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office T. P. Nagar,

Korba, Tahsil and District Korba, Chhatisgarh......(Non Applicant No. 3

(Nusrer)

---- Respondents

For Appellant – Shri M.K.Bhaduri, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 1 – None, though served.

For Respondent No.2 – None, though represented.

For Respondent No.3 – Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Chandra Bhushan Bajpai

Order on Board

26-10-2016

1.

Heard on I.A.No.1/2016 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in

short 'the Act, 1963') read with Section 12 of the Act, 1963 as the instant MAC

has been preferred after 1363 days of its limitation.

2.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the instant matter the

Claims Tribunal passed the award dated 05-07-2012 arises out of the Claim

Case No.281/2007. Thereafter, against the said award the non-applicant

No.2/appellant filed a review petition before the concerned Tribunal on 09-04-

2015. The Tribunal disposed of the said miscellaneous MACT Case

No.22/2015 on 22-04-2016 and vide operative para No.5 held that appeal lies

against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, there is no

-2-

any provision for review in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act, 1988)

and there would be no any review for merits of said award passed by the

Tribunal, the applicant has not filed any application for correction of procedural

part and as there is no any provision for review and against the order of

Tribunal only appeal is maintainable. Thereafter, the appellant filed a petition,

W.P.(227) No.359 of 2016 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 13-06-

2016 held that the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has no

substance and thereby dismissed the said petition. Thereafter, the appellant

has filed the instant MAC.

3.

It is submitted that there is substance in the MAC. The award passed by

the Tribunal is excessive. The Tribunal wrongly held that permanent disability is

75%, the Tribunal wrongly held for the breach of condtion of Beema Policy. The

appellant was taking recourse of law available; he had filed the review petition

and after dismissal thereof he had filed the petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India and thereafter he has filed the instant MAC. Hence, the

delay is bonafide and the same may be condoned as prayed.

4.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 opposed the I.A.No.1/2016.

5.

Perused the documents annexed along with the appeal and submitted

during the argument.

6.

During argument, learned counsel placed copy of order dated 13-06-

2016 passed in WP227 No.359 of 2016 which is made part of the record.

7.

For the relevance as per Article 124 of the Act, 1963 period for filing

review petition is only 30 days. The award passed on 05-07-2012 and the

appellant preferred the review petition filed before the concerned Tribunal on

09-04-2015, i.e., after two years and 9 months and 2 days. It is not apparent

whether any application for condonation of delay in filing the said review

petition is annexed or not.

8.

For relevance, paras 3