New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Bhai C. Patel and Others
EmailAppeal: I.As. Nos. 1-3 in SLPs (C) Nos. 1057-59 of 1997.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3-8-1996 in SCAs Nos. 14054, 13972 of 1994 and 9983 of 1995 of the High Court of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3-8-1996 in SCAs Nos. 14054, 13972 of 1994 and 9983 of 1995 of the High Court of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad)
Petitioner: New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Respondent: Ramesh Bhai C. Patel and Others
Apeal: I.As. Nos. 1-3 in SLPs (C) Nos. 1057-59 of 1997.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3-8-1996 in SCAs Nos. 14054, 13972 of 1994 and 9983 of 1995 of the High Court of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 3-8-1996 in SCAs Nos. 14054, 13972 of 1994 and 9983 of 1995 of the High Court of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad)
Judges: J.S.VERMA & S.P.KURDUKAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 07, 1997
Appearances:
Mr. Sunil Kapoor and Mr. M.K.Dua, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Head Note:
MOTOR VEHICLES
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:
Section 166(3), 173 – Constitution – Article 227 – Limitation – Delay – Condonation – Petition under Article 227 – Deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act during pendency – Bar of limitation for claim petition removed -Held that petition under Article 227 be deemed to be an appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act and condoning the delay, benefit of omission of Section 166(3) is granted to claimants.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:
Section 166(3), 173 – Constitution – Article 227 – Limitation – Delay – Condonation – Petition under Article 227 – Deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act during pendency – Bar of limitation for claim petition removed -Held that petition under Article 227 be deemed to be an appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act and condoning the delay, benefit of omission of Section 166(3) is granted to claimants.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief granted by the High Court of entertaining the claim peti-tion in view of the deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act could not have been given in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. He submits that only an appeal in the High Court under Section 173 of the Act could have been treated as a pending matter in which the benefit of deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act could have been given. He also submits that there is a limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 173 which had expired and this presented a further difficulty in the present case.
2. In our opinion, these are mere procedural or technical objections which should not frustrate the course of justice. The object of omitting sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act to remove the bar of limitation for a claim petition is obvious. This being so, a matter which was pending in the High Court when this change was brought about, should be governed by the effect of omission of sub-section (3) of Section 166. In the present case, the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is deemed to be an appeal to the High Court under Section 173 of the Act and condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the benefit of omission of sub-section (3) of Section 166, is granted to the claimants. The High Court’s order directing the claim petition to be entertained and decide on merits is sustained on this basis.
3. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.
1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief granted by the High Court of entertaining the claim peti-tion in view of the deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act could not have been given in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. He submits that only an appeal in the High Court under Section 173 of the Act could have been treated as a pending matter in which the benefit of deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act could have been given. He also submits that there is a limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 173 which had expired and this presented a further difficulty in the present case.
2. In our opinion, these are mere procedural or technical objections which should not frustrate the course of justice. The object of omitting sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act to remove the bar of limitation for a claim petition is obvious. This being so, a matter which was pending in the High Court when this change was brought about, should be governed by the effect of omission of sub-section (3) of Section 166. In the present case, the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is deemed to be an appeal to the High Court under Section 173 of the Act and condoning the delay in filing the appeal, the benefit of omission of sub-section (3) of Section 166, is granted to the claimants. The High Court’s order directing the claim petition to be entertained and decide on merits is sustained on this basis.
3. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.
