✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court

Satyavolu Nageswara Rao v. Pyala Ramulu @ Rambabu & Anr.

V ESWARAIAH

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed

Judgment

Operative part

This appeal is filed by the claimant against the judgment passed by the learned I Addl. District Judge-cum- Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Godavari, Eluru, in dismissing the application claiming compensation, on the sole ground that the claim application filed by the appellant claiming compensation was barred by time, inasmuch as the accident had occurred on 14.7.1993 i.e. before the Amendment Act, 1994, deleting sub-section (3) of Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Prior to the Amendment Act, which came into force with effect from 14.11.1994, the claim petition was required to be filed within twelve months from the date of accident, but after the Amendment Act, no limitation is prescribed. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a decision Dhannalal Vs. D.P. Vijayavargiya and others (AIR 1996 SC 2155), in similar set of facts, has held that even in respect of the accident that took place prior to the amendment, the claimants are entitled to file claim petition as the period of limitation has been deleted and the claim petitions filed therefor cannot be thrown out on the ground of limitation. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and the matter is remanded back to the learned I Addl. District Judge-cum- Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Godavari, Eluru, directing the Tribunal to entertain the O.P. and dispose of the same on its own merits, after giving

reasonable opportunity to both the parties. No costs. August 23, 2012 MAS ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Amendment Act, 1994; Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 166; Prior to the Amendment Act.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments