FAO No. 1228 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1228 of 1992 Date of decision January 27 , 2011 Naseeb Kaur and others ....... Appellant Versus Gurinder Singh and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Bhupinder Singh Thind , Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for Mr. P. K. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Pardeep Bedi, Advocate for the Insurance Company. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company points out that the petition was dismissed only on the ground of delay. The law is settled now by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that by virtue of the provisions entitling the claimant to file a case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal without any limitation of liability, all that is necessary is that the dismissal order ought not to have become final. The pendency of appeal before this Court constitutes continuation of proceedings and therefore the claimant would be entitled to pursue the remedy and seek for compensation in the manner provided under Section FAO No. 1228 of 1992 2 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The award of dismissal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for consideration of the claim in accordance with law. 2. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal in person or through counsel on 19.2.2011. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE January 27, 2011 archana