(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 168, 169 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 9, Rule 4 – MACT – Second Petition – Maintainability of – Since none of the parties were present the order so passed by learned Tribunal was either under Rule 2 of Order 17 or Rule 4 of Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In either of the case the provisions of Order 9 of the Code would apply and the appropriate provision would be Rule 4 of Order 9 of the Code, according to which institution of fresh proceeding on the same cause of action is not barred, subject however to the condition of application of law of limitation. (Para 26)
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section – 166 – MACT – Limitation – Second petition after 13 years – Held: Plea that claim barred by limitation – Held: The claim petitions have to be considered in the light of the amended Section 166 of the Act of 1988. As there is no period of limitation now, all the claim petitions have to be decided on merits. Claim not barred by Limitation. (Para 30, 31)
(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173 – MACT – Claim dismissed – Appeal against dismissal of claim – Held: Not only that claimants have failed to prove allegation of rash and negligent driving against respondent, they have even failed to prove the involvement of alleged offending vehicle in the accident and also the factum of such vehicle being driven by respondent. Once, there is no evidence against the respondents 1 and 2, the insurer inevitably gets absolved – Claim rightly dismissed. (Para 21)
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
2023 STPL(Web) 98 HP
[2023:HHC:9393]
Veena Kumari & Ors. Vs. Jameel Ahmed Khairsar & Others
FAO No.126 of 2014-Decided on 18-8-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-STPLWeb-98-HP.pdf
