The Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held that in a time-barred appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the High Court, a stay of execution of the award cannot be granted, so long as the delay condonation matter is not decided finally.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award of the Motor Accidents Tribunal during the pendency of an appeal.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the appeal was barred by limitation and the appellant may be granted a stay of execution of the award of the tribunal. It was further contended that there is no bar in the granting of a stay of execution of the decree/award during the pendency of the application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal. The counsel further relied on Rule 473 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to argue that Order 41 CPC has no application to the appeals under the Motor Vehicles Act, as the said provision has not been made applicable by Rule 473 of the APMV Rules 1989.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that Rule 473 of APMV Rules provides for the applicability of certain provisions of the CPC, to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal and the appeal under Section 173 of MV Act is not a proceeding before the Claims Tribunal, but before the High Court. The court referred to the judgement in Sharanamma v. North East Karnataka RTC which held when an appeal is filed under Section 173 of the MV Act before the High Court, the normal rules which apply to appeals before the High Court apply to such an appeal also. The court further stated that Order 41 CPC is a normal rule which applies before the High Court.
It was further stated that as per the mandate under Order 41 Rule 3A CPC, in a time-barred appeal unless the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the court after hearing Rule 11 does not dismiss the appeal but decides to hear it, stay of execution of decree cannot be granted. The court referred to the judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Tube Tools and Hardward Mart, Visakhapatnam which held that Rule 3A of Order 41 CPC is a mandatory provision and stated that the same escaped consideration in New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Visakhapatnam v. Srikakulapu Ayyababu and the decision in same does not lay down the correct law and the same is overruled.
It was further stated that in a time-barred appeal, so long as the matter for condonation of delay is not considered and decided in favour of the applicant for condonation of delay, the valuable right of the successful respondent acquired based on the award under challenge cannot be interfered with or restricted to the execution of the decree only to a limited extent.
It was stated that the grant of any such interim order would put restrictions on the rights of the claimants in the present case and the claimants have acquired a right to treat the award as having attained finality, on the expiry of the limitation period for appeal, which cannot be interfered with by confining the same to 50% of the awarded amount, pending consideration of the delay condonation matter.
The decision of the Court:
The court rejected the prayer to stay the award and stated that the appellant is at liberty to file a fresh application after the delay condonation matter is decided.
Case Title: M/s. United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Undamatla Varalakshmi and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao
Case No.: M.A.C.M.A. No. 221 of 2023
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Naresh Byrapaneni
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
