Chattisgarh High Court
Vikas Manikpuri vs Manraj Toppo on 6 February, 2023
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MA(C ) No.534 of 2021
Vikas Manikpuri, S/o Ram Birich, Aged About 17 Years, Through
Natural Guardian Mother Namely Manmati Manikpuri, aged about -
40 Years, R/o Village- Jarhadih, Police Station- Lundra, District :
Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Manraj Toppo, S/o Chanda Toppo, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village-
Kayanpurchrigah, Nawanagar, Police Station- Darima, District-
Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of C.G.15/A/2018)
2. Abdul Abbas, S/o Late Basir Mohammed, Aged About 40 Years,
Proprietor Rajdhani Transport, R/o Kharsiya Naka, Ambikapur, Police
Station and Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
(Owner of C.G.15/A/2018).
3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Through- Branch Manager,
Brahma Road, Near Hotel Kumkum, Ambikapur, District- Surguja,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
__________________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Shri Anurag Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 : Shri R.N. Pusty, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel Order on Board 06/02/2023
1. Challenge to this appeal is the award /order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh (in short 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No.207/2019 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition preferred by the appellant/claimant holding it to be barred by time.
2. The facts which are essential to be stated for adjudication of this appeal are that on 07.12.2017, the appellant along with his mother and father was travelling from Jarhadih to Sahanpur and while returning at around 6:15 PM near village Bulga, the ofending vehicle driven by respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner dashed the appellant and his mother due to which they sustained grievous injuries on various parts of their body. Subsequently, both of them were taken to District Hospital, Ambikapur where they received medical treatment. Thereafter, the appellant/claimant fled a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Principal Act') before the Tribunal claiming compensation total amounting to Rs.14,00,000/-.
3. The aforesaid claim petition fled by the appellant/claimant was dismissed by the Tribunal holding it to be barred by time as it was instituted beyond the prescribed period of six months from the date of occurrence of the accident as provided under subsection (3) of Section 166 of the Principal Act, which was inserted by virtue of Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act').
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that since the accident had taken place on 07.12.2017 i.e., prior to the Amendment Act when the relevant provision of the Principal Act was in force, where no time period was prescribed, the proceeding as initiated before the Tribunal, therefore must have been governed by provisions made in the said Principal Act and the claim could not have been held to be barred by time by taking recourse to the said provisions as inserted by the said Amendment Act. According to him, although the said Amendment Act has come into force w.e.f. 1 st September, 2019, but the provisions of Section 53 of it proposing to amend the said provision in Section 166 of the Principal Act were notifed in the Gazette of India dated 25 th February, 2022 and as per the notifcation, the provision of Section 53 of the Amendment Act should have come into force from 1st April, 2022. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has, committed a serious illegality in dismissing the claim petition by holding it to be barred by time.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 opposes the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/claimant.
6. The Amendment Act, 2019 was published on 9 th August, 2019 in the Gazette of India which has amended the Principal Act drastically.
7. Section 1 of the Amendment Act is relevant for the purpose which reads as under:-
"1. Short title and commencement._ (1) This Act may be called the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, (2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notifcation in the Ofcial Gazette, appoint and diferent dates may be appointed for diferent provisions of this Act and any reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Act shall be construed as a reference to the coming into force of that provision."
8. A bare perusal of sub-section (2) of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the provisions contained therein i.e. Amendment Act would be attracted only by virtue of the notifcation issued by the Central Government and unless and until it is notifed, it cannot be said to be operational.
9. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2) of Section 1 of the Amendment Act has issued a notifcation appointing the 1st day of April, 2022 as the date on which the following provisions of the Amendment Act have come into force, namely:-
Sl. No. Sections 1. Section 50; 2. Section 51; 3. Section 52; 4. Section 53; 5. Section 54; 6. Section 55; 7. Section 56; 8. Section 57; and 9. Section 93;
10. On bare perusal of the table, it is clear that the provision of Section 53 of the Amendment Act have come into force from 1 st April, 2022 only, therefore, the fnding recorded by the learned Tribunal holding that the petition is time barred, is not in accordance with law.
11.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment/order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal is herein quashed and claim petition is accordingly restored with a direction that the Claim Tribunal shall register it and decide the same in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Prakash