AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.L. Mehta, J.—Heard and perused the order.
Appeal does not lie against the order granting interim compensation u/s 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The appeal may be treated as revision petition and no question of jurisdiction is involved and the court exercised the power vested in it. As far as limitation is concerned, ordinarily it is said that the beneficial legislation should be interpreted in favour of the party for whose benefit the law has been enacted. Section 144 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that the provisions of this Chapter shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, or of any other law for the time being in force.
Thus, it is very clear that Section 144 is independent of the provisions of Section 166 and no limitation has been prescribed u/s 140(92-A). Thus, the question of limitation does not arise.
In the result, I do not find any force in this miscellaneous appeal and the same is rejected.