Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
========================================================= NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. - Appellant(s) Versus GANESHBHAI DHULABHAI BHANGI H/O DECD. SAVITABEN G BHANGI & 8 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI for Appellant(s) : 1, MR MEHUL S SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1 - 7. MR SURESH M SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1 - 7.
- for Defendant(s) : 0.0.0
- for Defendant(s) : 0.0.0 ========================================================= CORAM :
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 22/03/2012 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT
1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 24.03.1999 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Bhuj-Kutch in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.584/1991 to 587/1991, wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,86,600/- to the claimants of M.A.C.P. No. 584/1991 to 586/1991 and Rs. 2,02,800/- to the claimants of M.A.C.P. No. 587/1991, along with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of application till its realization.
2. The original claimants had filed applications under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of death of Savitaben, Tulsaben, Baluben, and injured person Baldevbhai Haribhai in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 04.09.1991. The said applications came to be partly allowed, by way of the impugned award, which are under challenge in these appeals.
5. Having heard the main contesting parties and the learned counsel for the other respondents, it is not in dispute that the accident in question occurred prior to the amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act. The accident in question took place on 04.09.1991. The amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act, came into force with effect from 14.11.1994. Therefore, it is an admitted position that the accident occurred prior to the amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside and the Tribunal decides the matter afresh in view of the fact that accident took place prior to the amendment.
6. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed. The common impugned award passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal concerned for consideration afresh. The Tribunal shall after hearing the parties decide the application u/s. 166 of the M.V. Act, a fresh, in accordance with law. Since the claim petition is of the year 1999, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two year from the date of receipt of writ of this order. In the meanwhile the awarded amount shall be invested in a fixed deposit by the Tribunal with any nationalized bank in the name of the Nazir of the Tribunal and the receipt thereof shall be retained with the Tribunal. The interest that may be accrued on the said deposit shall not be disbursed.
7. In the result, the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K.S.
JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/ Top