RAJESH KUMAR MAMGAIN Vs. RAJ SINGH
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Rajesh Kumar Mamgain
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22.7.2010 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by Addl. District Judge/F.T.C.-II, Dehradun.
(2.) By the impugned order, learned Addl. District has dismissed the application moved by the petitioner/claimant for execution of award on the ground of delay and has held that provision of Order 21 C.P.C. would not apply. So far as limitation is concerned, for application filed under Section 174 of Motor Vehicles Act, Article 137, which provides limitation of three years, would be attracted.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the approach of learned Tribunal is erroneous since there is no limitation prescribed u/s. 174 of the Act. If a petition can be entertained without any limitation, likewise the application for execution can also be maintained since it is a special act. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court passed in Motor Accident Claim Case in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma and another, 2003 AIR(SC) 4394 wherein at para-12 it has been held as under:-
"12. Learned counsel for the appellant, next contended that since no period of limitation has been prescribed by the Legislature, Article 137 of the Limitation Act max; be invoked, otherwise, according to him, state claims would be encouraged leading to multiplicity of litigation for non-prescribing the period of limitation. We are unable to countenance with the contention of the appellate for more than one reason. Firstly, such an Act like Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, if otherwise the claim is found genuine. Secondly, it is a self contained Act which prescribes mode of filing the application, procedure to be followed and award to be made. The Parliament, in its wisdom, realised the grave injustice and injury being caused to the heirs and legal representatives of the victims who suffer bodily injuries/die in accidents, by rejecting their claim petitions at the threshold on the ground of limitation, and purposely deleted sub-section (3) of Section 166, which provided the period of limitation for filing the claim petitions and this being the intendment of the Legislature to give effective relief to the victims and the families of the motor accidents untrammeled by the technicalities of the limitation, invoking of Article 137 of the Limitation Act would defeat the intendment of the Legislature.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.