- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondents have taken place an objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition in reference of the judgment of the hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sadhna Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. reported in JT 2003 (6) SC 126.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submtis that the matter having been admitted, thus the question of availability of remedy as has been dealt by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sadhna Lodh vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr. should not be applied and it is prayed that matter may decided on its merit in reference of the judgment of Hon'ble gauhati High Court in the case of Milan Rani Saha Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in accidents Claims Journal 2001 I 103.
(3.) I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and find that the hon'ble Apex Court interfered in the order passed by the Division Bench, where the appeal was allowed and thereby a direction for payment of compensation was also given. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that neither the writ petition nor the appeal was maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 173 of the Motor vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1988 ). In the present matter mere admission of the writ petition cannot mean that the writ petition is to be taken as maintainable. In all circumstances more so when subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and wherein even the case was decided on its merit but in slp, writ and appeal were held to be maintainable.;