LexTHE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. versus GOPU & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 169 : 2025 INSC 511 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gopu & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 5300 of 2025) 08 April 2025 [Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court enhancing the compensation awarded to the claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Headnotes† Limitation Act, 1963 – ss.5, 6 – Legal Disability – Death of wife in motor vehicle accident – Claim petition by the husband and two minor children – Tribunal awarded compensation – Thereagainst, after 10 years, children alone preferred appeal before High Court, wherein one child had attained majority five years back – High Court enhanced compensation – Correctness: Held: Appeal filed before the High Court was grossly delayed and hence not maintainable – s.6 enables a person disabled, by reason of minority, etc., to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a ‘decree’, within the period of limitation provided, after the disability has ceased – Provision applies only with respect to a suit or an application for the execution of a decree and not in an appeal or any other proceeding – Impliedly, the exemption by reason of a disability applies to the institution of an original proceeding or an application for execution of a final decree, which will not apply in the case of an appeal – Father as the natural guardian has instituted the original proceeding before the tribunal, with both the minor children in the party array of claimants, represented by the father, the natural guardian – Father who is the natural guardian took a conscious decision not to file an appeal and was satisfied with the award – Intention of the legislature being very clear, it is not for the courts to extend the period of limitation on misplaced sympathies – Even s.5 has no application in the facts of the case, insofar as the long delay occasioned, especially when in the original proceedings, the children were represented by the father, the natural guardian – Judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court set aside – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.166. [Paras 9, 12, 13] 170 [2025] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited Ajay Gupta v. Raju [2016] 3 SCR 225 : (2016) 14 SCC 314; Bechi v. Ahsan-Ullah Khan, 1890 SCC OnLine All 1; Musthafali v. Subair, 1991 SCC OnLine Ker 269; H.H. Maharana Sahib Shri Bhagwat Singh Bahadur of Udaipur v. State of Rajasthan, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 119 – referred to. List of Acts Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Limitation Act, 1963; Limitation Act of 1871; Limitation Act of 1908; Limitation Act (XV of 1877). List of Keywords Compensation; Motor Accident; Claim petition; Enhancement of claim; Limitation to file appeal; Natural guardian; Exemption by reason of a disability; Delay; Natural guardian; Intention of the legislature. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5300 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 01.03.2019 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in MACA No. 627 of 2016 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Ms. Shuchi Singh, Shuchi Singh, Vivek Kumar Pandey, Ms. Shivani Mishra. Adv. for the Respondents: Venkita Subramoniam T.R. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against an order dated 01.03.2019, passed by the High Court of Kerala in MACA No.627 of 2016, by which the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha (for short, `the Tribunal’) was enhanced. [2025] 5 S.C.R. 171 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gopu & Anr. 3. On 02.06.2000 at 3.00 P.M., the deceased was riding pillion on a motorcycle being driven by one V.G. Shibu, 1st respondent before the Tribunal. Near the Avalookunnu Post office, respondent No.1 applied sudden brake to save a cyclist and the deceased fell and was injured. Ultimately, the deceased succumbed to her injuries on 07.06.2000 at the Medical College Hospital. It is alleged that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving by the bike driver. The owner and driver were ex-parte in the Tribunal. 4. The legal representatives of the deceased, husband and two minor children, preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,53,000/- (Rupees Six Lakh Fifty Three Thousand only). Against the award dated 2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.