[22/07, 22:07] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1815425428527390913?t=AypX6gwfImVC4eRiwKtZHQ&s=08[22/07, 22:08] sekarreporter1: The Hon’ble Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Justice MM Sunderesh and Hon’ble Justice Aravind Kumar has clarified a position of law on a SLP filed by the law association challenging the orders of Hon’ble Madras Highcourt and consequent amendments that was brought into the Central Motor Vehicle Rules and its interpretation with regard to the newly amended Rule 36 ,35 ,150A, 168, 169, 176.The law association was represented by Learned Senior Counsel S Prabakaran who mainly raised arguements about the implementation of annuity scheme as it would cause unnecessary hardship to the claimant to receive the money in lump-sum which he would be entitled and it was submitted by Mr S Prabakaran that the term period for the money to be settled to the victim stipulated in the annuity scheme is unwarranted as it would not benefit the claimant especially in disputes that are resolved through mediation.The senior Mr S Prabakaran further raised objections towards rule 150 A on submitting that the said rule would go against the parent legislation, Section 166, 168 ,169 of Motor Vehicles Act as the aforementioned section have proper mechanism dealing with accident claim. The learned Senior counsel though accepted that the legislation is one of wellfare legislation, contended that the claimant should not suffer any disadvantage. Further the Senior stressed upon legal assistance to the claimant in all phases in the claim process, on these contentions the senior sought certain clarification from the Hon’ble court.In other hand amicus Vijay Raghavan submitted that rule 150A merely deals with procedures for investigation in road accidents and the same cannot be said that it is against parent statue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Hon’ble Justice MM Sunderesh and Hon’ble Justice Aravind Kumar clarified the position of law that rule 150A has to be read with Section 159 of the Act as it being incidental and ancillary in a claim petition which is made amply clear under Section 166(4) and further the Hon’ble Court observed that rule 35 and 36 gives ample discretion to the tribunal to adapt an appropriate mechanism to disperse the claim/ award amount to the claimant and it is for the the tribunal to exercise such power. The Hon’ble apex court by observing the aforesaid position disposed the SLP with clarifying the position of law that it is for the tribunal to excersice the power in the annuity scheme and the disposal of award amount to claimant either in full or in parts.

Sekar Reporter

3 months ago

[22/07, 22:07] sekarreporter1: https://x.com/sekarreporter1/status/1815425428527390913?t=AypX6gwfImVC4eRiwKtZHQ&s=08
[22/07, 22:08] sekarreporter1: The Hon’ble Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Justice MM Sunderesh and Hon’ble Justice Aravind Kumar has clarified a position of law on a SLP filed by the law association challenging the orders of Hon’ble Madras Highcourt and consequent amendments that was brought into the Central Motor Vehicle Rules and its interpretation with regard to the newly amended Rule 36 ,35 ,150A, 168, 169, 176.
The law association was represented by Learned Senior Counsel S Prabakaran who mainly raised arguements about the implementation of annuity scheme as it would cause unnecessary hardship to the claimant to receive the money in lump-sum which he would be entitled and it was submitted by Mr S Prabakaran that the term period for the money to be settled to the victim stipulated in the annuity scheme is unwarranted as it would not benefit the claimant especially in disputes that are resolved through mediation.
The senior Mr S Prabakaran further raised objections towards rule 150 A on submitting that the said rule would go against the parent legislation, Section 166, 168 ,169 of Motor Vehicles Act as the aforementioned section have proper mechanism dealing with accident claim. The learned Senior counsel though accepted that the legislation is one of wellfare legislation, contended that the claimant should not suffer any disadvantage. Further the Senior stressed upon legal assistance to the claimant in all phases in the claim process, on these contentions the senior sought certain clarification from the Hon’ble court.
In other hand amicus Vijay Raghavan submitted that rule 150A merely deals with procedures for investigation in road accidents and the same cannot be said that it is against parent statue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Hon’ble Justice MM Sunderesh and Hon’ble Justice Aravind Kumar clarified the position of law that rule 150A has to be read with Section 159 of the Act as it being incidental and ancillary in a claim petition which is made amply clear under Section 166(4) and further the Hon’ble Court observed that rule 35 and 36 gives ample discretion to the tribunal to adapt an appropriate mechanism to disperse the claim/ award amount to the claimant and it is for the the tribunal to exercise such power. The Hon’ble apex court by observing the aforesaid position disposed the SLP with clarifying the position of law that it is for the tribunal to excersice the power in the annuity scheme and the disposal of award amount to claimant either in full or in parts.