Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Dhananjay Shankar Phadnis & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ss. 166, 170
Judgment
Mr.J.S.Chandnani, for petitioner. Mr.S.M.Dandge, for respondent no.4. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 26th NOVEMBER, 2010 P.C: Notice for final disposal was issued on 21st October, 2010. Office noting shows that the first and second respondents have been duly served. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent is present. 2] The first and second respondents filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on account of the death of their son in a motor accident. The petitioner has been impleaded as second opponent to the said application in its capacity as the insurer of one of the vehicle allegedly involved in the accident. In the claim petition of 2000, an application was made by the petitioner on 14th August, 2008 for setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal to proceed with the claim petition without the written statement of the petitioner. By the 2 wp4651-10.sxw impugned order, the said applicant has been rejected. 3] After having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that a hyper technical approach has been adopted by the learned Member of the Tribunal. The order to proceed exparte was passed on 7th March, 2008 and, in fact, along with application dated 14th August, 2008 made by the petitioner, written statement was tendered. There is no finding recorded that the claim petition was at the stage of final hearing. In view of the averments made in the application, the said application ought to have been allowed. There is nothing on record to show as to whether a leave under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been granted to the petitioner. Though the written statement deserves to be taken on record, the defence of the petitioner will depend on the question whether a leave under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is granted or not. Hence, I pass the following order: (a) The impugned order dated 28th April, 2009 is quashed and set aside. (b) Subject to what is observed above, the Written statement filed by the petitioner shall be taken on record. (c) Hearing of the claim petition is expedited. (d) The petition is allowed in the above terms.
[A.S.OKA, J]
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — ss. 166, 170.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 26 Nov 2010. The bench was A S OKA.
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.