Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others - Appellant Versus Chhitariya and others - Respondent

Core ratio / Key holding

Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 — Section 92-A — Interim Compensation — Appealability

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 140, 144, 166 — Interim Compensation — Limitation

Issues for determination

• Whether an appeal lies against an order granting interim compensation under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
• Whether there is a limitation period for claiming interim compensation under Section 92-A (now 140) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Ratio decidendi

• An appeal does not lie against an order granting interim compensation under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, but such an appeal may be treated as a revision petition if no question of jurisdiction is involved and the court exercised vested power.
• No limitation period is prescribed for claiming interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (previously Section 92-A of the 1939 Act), as Section 144 of the 1988 Act provides an overriding effect, making it independent of other provisions like Section 166.

Important points

• Held, an appeal against an order granting interim compensation under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, does not lie, but may be treated as a revision petition.
• Declared, no limitation period is prescribed for claiming interim compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (or Section 92-A of the 1939 Act), due to the overriding effect of Section 144.

Keywords