uwum Ur AAKNAIAIRA HIGH COURI KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGHCCURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUI?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNKIfA1{_A ~
AT GU;;I3;x:2G}x~ . A % % u
DATED THIS THE 231%
HONBLE i~:1NcH1GER1
(MV)
BETWEEN: %%%% V AV
Ameerbee ‘ ‘ “.
Caste Muslim, Ag: 60 yaaxrs,
Occ: Hausshnlé, rf e-:«.uB’i1t)gaf1t1aI1i,
‘I’;;’;»Avfza1p’i}r,E Gfibhama. .. Appellant
(By -Sri.:.C’ E fxfivocatc)
‘ fi’%1e’*’!s&aLt?9a$r;”‘
_ 4’-€)I’ie1″:.t;:21_I1i:31;m.:1ce Co.
‘”»..’*..Divfi,*-3i<'ma:1'oi"fice,
" 'Crpp. Tc} Mini Vidhan
' 1 V . _ _Scmdh3 office at Gulbarga.
.. Respcmdent
This M.F.A. is filed undar Section 173g 1} 9f the M.V..Act,
against the judgment éijfifi awam dateu. 32.16.2003 in MVC
No, 15212002 on thfi file of ibri. Civil Judga (Sr:Dn.) at Gublarga.
This M.F.A. Gaming on for Grciers this day, court made the
f9I10wing:-
COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT KARNATAKA HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAXA I-BGH COUR
This matter has come ‘for Vhordfire o fiice
objections.
2. The apmilant the judment and awarti dated figs Court of Principal
cm; Judge (9.:-;D;§g};:4§t *:t1.’m’%c No.152/2002.
3. The 0fii¢€”~fiaS objections:
_ “I’h¢:;€}é3s.. a ciV.eiay V'<§'f Q25 days in filing the appeal. LA.
' ' fear '-Q.°9:,_ -got Af11e<i"' """ " '
4, " side has not made an application for the
:"r:<;23'1doI3'ai:if_5r1 cf On the other hand, the appelianfs learned
. .. h;a"s.j§§7ritten the following on the check slip:
T “‘fV§’ii’;13;’regax’d to ofiice objection or; limitation point, it is
~ made very much crlmar in pleading of appeal memo, on
_,pa.ge~–9 itseif. Even, raising such xmnecassary and
” irmlevant objection is unjust and unfair, as it is clearly
illegal and does not stand in the eyes of law, and leads
to abuse of §)Z{‘(}C6SS of mmt, creating hurdies in the Way
sf speedy justics in accerdance with law.”
– 5. Sri C R Bauéh, the lmmm counsel for the appellant, submits
that althaugh there is a éfifafi 91′ 182.5 éays in filing £1133 appeal, he
.35..
uuun: we RAKNAEAEA HEUH (…{)l.JR'{-QAF I(ARNA”!’AKA I-EGH COURT OF KARNAVAKA H!GH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR’
is not obiiged to make an application for J
He submits that there is no rod:-e fdixag petitfon,
as the appea} proceedings o;V3@”jie’V’ee.I1t.i’Iiuatio1; of the claim
proceedings, no appfieafion; of delay need be
fiied. He brings go subsection (3) of
Section 166 of the @988 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the said ?Ae”t”” byd~O;:;e by Act 53 of 1994 with
effect from if-Iev submits that the said Act is a
social welfare eeiezfrateni Oieégwiéiafion. He has also relied upon a
the ‘Hon’b”1e”‘SiiVpreme Court in the case of Dhannalal —
vs» remrted in AIR 1996 SC 2155, wherein
vV.:AAi1i”ie Parfiament rigney theught that prescribing :3.
.. of. iireitation and restsrietirlg the power of Tribunal to
eiaim petifion beyond the periw of twelve months
_ -thee date of the accident was harsh, mmuitabie; and in many
it was likely be cause izxjustice to the claimants. The relevant
portions of the judgment, which the learned eeufieel for the
appeilant relied upon, are extracted hereirmeiew:
133%
COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KAEHATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR
“7 ………… .. The eflect of delefiond-of
Seeder} 166 of the Act caz1_1::e4_ tested by a::v’fi:1i;$’u*a§:.ioi}.
Suypose an accident had tak€%:’1’1% plaé:o, twc) ‘3feé*sx*s” ‘Defers ”
14-} 141994, when $ub~scctioa,'{3) wadfiomittfid from
Section 166. For om: I’€aS{}i1d_GI’V”‘{11e other no claim
petition had been ffieé.__by thef.?i.C13.I_n,,Oozf_t11e heirs of the
victim tin 14.11.1994. C311 a.:;:1ai1;:;*o’pe1:it:gn be not filed
after 14.1 1.1994, in respect. of Asuc1i’.aC’oi.dent? Whether
a claim petitigw._t’:3cd iaft¢r:}I4.,V1-1′,=1994:-5 can be rejected
by the Triburial oflixiiiiation saying that
the period {of tweivé..__m0:;ths._Whic}t1..had been prescribed
when sub–s«::c1;ie:1 (3) or Sectjdn I-756 was in force having
expired; “t’I’1a~’-3. ‘:0 p7ri–“:::i’er thfiwciaim yctition had been
extingt1ished”9.3:3dV_ “1”2§>’i;.¥:1«.=: revived after deietion of
sub-section (.3) acfyf 166 W.C.f. 14-11-1994′?
Accordirig to us, “€'{1’o_ answer should be in negative.
When sub;saction’._(3j«._of-‘Section 166 has been omitted,
then; ‘the: has to entertain a claim petition
” «–.witE51_out:_ n’m.¢–~:~;:’ the date on which such accident
had ‘taken gniadce. The claim petitions caxmot be thrown
-;:>s1t’o:1 théo that such claim petifions were barred
‘tizjs!”t’i4:;1e”1s%hcr;.§s1;ibsectic>z1 (3) of Section 166 was in force.
It mood 1_1.o’1’:~ impressed that Parliament from time to
. timéhas irififoduced amendments in the old Act as Well
‘as in t;1*1e :new Act in order to protect the interest of the
< .,§zi:::£;ims bf the accidents and their heirs if tha victims
'–d_is:. '£3116 such amendment has been introduced in the
_ Act" by the aforesaid Amendment Act 54 of 1994, by
szzzbstituting subsection (6) of Section 148, which
.. ” -provides:
…If a vi<:t:im of the accident or heirs of thé
daceased victim can prefer claim for compensation
aithough not being preferred ci:ar1ie31* 'xadsauge (if 331:3
sxpiry sf tlza periad sf Zimitatiorz proscribed, how the
victim 23:' the hcirn; cf the dcccaacd 5113111 ht: in a worm:
positing if {he qiiéfitififl df ceizdonation of delay in filing
figié
COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT'0_E KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR
contained in Section 173{1) of the I
deleted.
8. The judgment relied’ Ieeunsei for the
appellant is in the context oreeag under Section 166
of the said Act, of limitation is
prescribed £9: not w contended with
any Iate ef lirnitation is there for filing the
appeal. If the filed on time, it is not that the
” The Legislature has provided for
agqvplicgefien fer the eenéonatien of delay for entertaining
amgaal’ eeeefij expiry of the said 90 days, if the Court. is
;=§_f Ilhfi appellant was grevented by suffieient: eause
the apml within the prescribed period.
-Tiiexe can :10: m any dispute that the eaié Act: is a social
oriented iegelatien, but the fruits of beneficial legislation
are to be given 01123; in a manner krlewn to law. I re}eei: this appeal,
as the epgeilam has failed ‘:0 file an applicatien fer the cenéorzatien
ef delay: Hewever, iibeity is %d be the appellant fie file the
W.
7 a;
W
%
M
C
m
%u
m
ma
M
%._
1:”fof».t1ie ‘cQi1ii’e19ié1tion £3’? ”
delay.
Bkm
