AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.J. Shethna, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel Shri Loonkar has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in awarding Rs. 25,000/- without holding any inquiry into the matter about the death of the deceased, which took place on the road while driving the motor-cycle.
Learned counsel Shri Chouhan for the claimants raised the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this revision petition. He submitted that only appeal lies in view of Section 173 read with Ss. 140 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). He submits that even if revision lies, then also no error of jurisdiction is committed by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, this Court should dismiss the revision petition. He also submitted that no inquiry was required to be made by the Tribunal. He further submitted that the behaviour of Ajay, who was alleged to have driving the motor cycle at the time of accident, was such, which supports the case of the claimants that it was only Ajay and not the deceased, who was driving the motor cycle at the time of the accident when the motor cycle slipped in which deceased Sadique died.
Learned counsel Shri Loonkar has relied upon the judgment of single Bench of this Court reported in 1991 Ace CJ 32 and submitted that the revision is maintainable and not the appeal.