Skip to content


Sadhu Singh Vs. Punjab Roadways, Ambala City and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberF.A.O. No. 68 of 1963
Judge
Reported inAIR1968P& H466
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 110
AppellantSadhu Singh
RespondentPunjab Roadways, Ambala City and anr.
Appellant Advocate G.S. Grawal, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Gopal Singh, Adv. General
DispositionAppeal allowed
Cases Referred and P. Channappa v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal
Excerpt:
.....high court. it has not made any provision for filing appeal to a division bench against the judgment or decree or order of a single judge. no letters patent appeal shall lie against a judgment/order passed by a single judge in an appeal arising out of a proceeding under a special act. sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002] & 104:[dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a..........j. 1. this appeal must succeed in view of the decision of the madras high court in jerome d'silva v. the regional transport authority, south kanara, air 1952 mad 853 and p. channappa v. mysore revenue appellate tribunal, bangalore, 1966 cri lj 265 = (air 1966 mys 68). in both these cases it has been held that the judgment of the criminal court is binding so far as statutory tribunals are concerned. the motor accidents claims tribunal, constituted under the motor vehicles act, is such a tribunal and was so held by the learned chief justice in air 1952 mad 853. the tribunal has given a complete go-by to the judgment of the criminal court where the driver of the offending vehicle was convicted and sentenced for the death of the petitioner's son. 2. in this view of the matter, i allow.....
Judgment:

D.K. Mahajan, J.

1. This appeal must succeed in view of the decision of the Madras High Court in Jerome D'Silva v. The Regional Transport Authority, South Kanara, AIR 1952 Mad 853 and P. Channappa v. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, 1966 Cri LJ 265 = (AIR 1966 Mys 68). In both these cases it has been held that the judgment of the Criminal Court is binding so far as statutory Tribunals are concerned. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, is such a Tribunal and was so held by the learned Chief Justice in AIR 1952 Mad 853. The Tribunal has given a complete go-by to the judgment of the Criminal Court where the driver of the offending vehicle was convicted and sentenced for the death of the petitioner's son.

2. In this view of the matter, I allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Claims Tribunal and remit the case to him to determine the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner. The cost will be costs in the cause.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //