MANAGING DIRECTOR THANTHAL PERIYAR TRANSPORT CORPN VILLUPURAM Vs. K C KARTHIYAYINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these civil Miscellaneous Petitions one common question of law is involved and hence they are disposed of together. These civil miscellaneous petitions are for stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the awards passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in three different Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in three different motor Accidents Claims original petitions, pending disposal of three different civil miscellaneous petitions for excusing the delay in filing the respective civil miscellaneous appeal against the awards passed in the respective motor accidents claims original petition. The question is whether these stay petitions are maintainable in the teeth of Order 41, Rule 3A (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, in other words, whether Order 41, Rule 3A of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to such civil miscellaneous appeals filed in this Court under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 or under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

(2.) Order 41, Rule 3A(3) reads as follows:-

(3.) Respective learned counsel in the above civil miscellaneous petitions made the following submission:- The provisions of Order 41, Rule 3A, C.P.C. will not apply to the abovesaid appeals under the Motor Vehicles Act. The decisions in Gouse Bi v. Salima Bi, (1974) 87 Mad LW 171: (AIR 1974 Mad 220) (DB); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. S. Vasantha (1987 ACJ 887) : (AIR 1988 Mad 146) (1)B), Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Katanreddi Subbareddy (1975 ACJ 95 : (AIR 1974 Andh Pra 310); R. Govinda Rajulu Naidu v. S. Dharman, (1986 ACJ 178: (AIR 1985 Mad 264) (1)B), Nirmala Chaudhafy v. Bishershar Lai (AIR 1979 Delhi 26) and State of Assam v. Gobinda Chandra Paul (AIR 1991 Gauhati 104) were relied on by them.