The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Kannan and Another

Sathasivam, J.—This is a revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the United India Insurance Company against the

order dated 22.1.1992 made in I.A. No. 414 of 1991 in unnumbered M.C.O.P. on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District

Judge), Madurai. In this case the accident took place on 24.9.1988. The first respondent herein who is the claimant before the court below, filed

an application for compensation with a petition to condone a delay of 377 days in filing the claim petition on 6.4.1990. Before the court below the

first respondent, namely, owner of the vehicle made an endorsement that he has no objection for condoning the delay. However, the second

respondent though filed a counter affidavit, has not raised any serious objection. In view of the above circumstances, the TnibMi nal allowed the

application on payment of cost of Rs. 150 each to the counsel for the first and second respondents therein on or before 20.2.1992. The said order

is being challenged by the Insurance Company in this revision.

Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, learned Counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the amendment came into force with effect from 1.7.89, relying on a

decision reported in Vinod Gurudas Raikar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, submits that the Court below has no jurisdiction to

condone the delay in filing the said petition. No doubt, it is true that in the above said Supreme Court decision the Apex Court has held that after

1.7.1989. Only the provision of the new Act will govern. However, the recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in Dhannalal Vs. D.P.

Vijayvargiya and Others, after considering the relevant provisions came to the conclusion,

But that Principle will not govern case''s where the dispute as to whether petition for claim arise having been filed beyond the period of twelve

months from the date of the accident is pending consideration either before the Tribunal. High Court or this Court. In such cases, the benefit of

amendment of Sub-section (3) of Section 166 should be extended.

In view of the decision and conclusion of the Apex Court, which has been held very recently, the court below has amply power to condone the

delay and in this case, the delay has rightly been condoned. Hence, I do not find any good reason to interfere in the order of the Tribunal.

Consequently, the C.M.P., is dismissed. No costs. C.M.P. No. 4055 of 1992 is also dismissed.