High CourtsDivision Bench(2000) 02 MP CK 0026

Ram Khilawan Verma vs Rikhiram and Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 11 February 2000 · Citation: (2000) 3 MPHT 109

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.N.S. Chauhan, Acting C.J. · Rajeev Gupta, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 200 of 2000

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 293 words

D.P.S. Chauhan, Ag. C.J.

1.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 23-9-99 passed in Claim Case No. 97/97 by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur rejecting the claim petition on the ground that in claim cases provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC are applicable.

2.

Heard learned counsel Shri H.S. Patel.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC would not apply in the claim cases and the fact that earlier the appellant withdrew claim petition was of no consequence and he was entitled to maintain a fresh claim case.

4.

The Claims Tribunal considered this aspect of the matter in Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the impugned order. According to Rule 240 of the Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Rules, 1994, which is as extracted below :

^^240- nkok vf/kdj.k }kjk tk�p djus esa viuk;h tkus okyh izf�;k & flfoy izf�;k lafgrk 1908 ds dfri; mica/kksa dh iz;qf� bl vf/kfu;e ;k bu fu;eksa esa vU;Fkk vfHkO;� :i ls tSlk vU;Fkk micaf/kr gS] ds flok; flfoy izf�;k lafgrk] 1908 �1908 dk la- 5� dh izFke vuqlwph ds fuEufyf[kr mica/k vFkkZr~ tks vkns''k ik�p] fu;e 9 ls 13 rFkk 15 ls 20 vkns''k ukS] vkns''k rsjg fu;e 3 ls 10] vkns''k lksyg] fu;e 2 ls 21] vkns''k l=g] vkns''k bDdhl rFkk vkns''k rsbZl fu;e 1 ls 3 esa vUrfoZ"V gS] nkok vf/kdj.k ds le{k dh dk;Zokfg;ksa ij ykxw gksaxs tgk� rd fd os mudks ykxw gksrs gksaA**

The provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the CPC have been made applicable to the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

5.

In view of above, the submission has no substance.

6.

The appeal is sans substance. It is accordingly rejected.