Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Vinaik Sharma vs United India Insurance Company & Ors. on 1 August, 2017
Bench: Alok Aradhe, Sanjeev Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
LPAC No. 25/2017
MP No. 01/2017
Date of Order: 01.08.2017
________________________________________________________________
Vinaik Sharma vs. United India Ins. Co. and ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe, Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge
Appearing counsel:
For Petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Advocate
i/ Whether to be reported in : Yes/No Press/Media ii/ Whether to be reported in : Yes/No Digest/Journal In this appeal, the appellant has called in question the validity of order dated 06.12.2016 rendered by the learned Single Judge in CIMA No. 204/2008, by which the appeal preferred by the appellant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been dismissed on account of non-compliance of the provisions of section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the appellant inter alia submitted that in view of the bar contained under section 100-A of Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal is not maintainable, however, in the peculiar facts of the case, the appeal is maintainable. It is further submitted that expression "judgment and order"
used in section 100-A of CPC would not apply in statutory appeals preferred under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is submitted that since the appeal preferred by the appellant has not been decided on merit, therefore, the bar contained under section 100-A CPC would not apply. It is argued that without prescribing the manner of payment of the amount of deposits, the appeal could not have been dismissed for non-compliance of the provisions of section 173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On the other hand, Mr. Vishnu Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents has raised objection that the issue with regard to maintainability of appeal is now no longer res integra and has been dealt with by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as well as by the Supreme Court.
3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. vs. Mohd Maqbool Reshi, 1999 KLJ 756 has held that until and unless requirement of provisions of section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not complied with by the appellant, the appeal is not maintainable. The Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Devi and other vs. Puran Ram Raigar and another, 2010 ACJ 2660 has held that Intra Court Appeal against the order of learned Single Case. LPAC No. 25 of 2017 Page 2 of 3 Judge deciding the appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is not maintainable.
4 . In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, it is graphically clear that Letters Patent Appeal against the impugned judgment is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not maintainable.
(Sanjeev Kumar ) (Alok Aradhe)
Judge Judge
Jammu,
01.08.2017
Karam Chand
Case. LPAC No. 25 of 2017 Page 3 of 3