Jharkhand High Court
New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs Smt.Gurubari & Ors on 14 June, 2012
Equivalent citations: AIR 2013 JHARKHAND 70, 2013 AAC 1180, 2013 (2) AJR 183, (2012) 4 JCR 380 (JHA), (2012) 116 ALLINDCAS 837 (JHA), (2010) 2 ORISSA LR 1180, 2013 AAC 1180 (JHA), (2013) 1 TAC 227, (2013) 3 ACC 302, (2013) 4 ACJ 2676
Author: P.P. Bhatt
Bench: P.P. Bhatt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Revision No. 111 of 2005
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Smt. Gurubari
2. Dilip Kumar Kalindi ...Opposite Parties
--------
Coram: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.P. BHATT
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr.S.L. Agarwal, Advocate
----
11/14.06.2012: Present civil revision has been filed under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 10.8.2005 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge-cum-MVACT, Jamshedpur in MJC Case No. 163 of 2004, whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner with regard to the maintainability of the claim application on the ground that the claim application has been filed after a delay of about 11 years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned court-below has failed to appreciate that though the limitation is not prescribed in the Act, the petition is required to be filed within reasonable time. It is further submitted that the learned court-below has wrongly applied the principles in deciding the issue with regard to the maintainability without taking into consideration that sub-section(3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been omitted in the year 1994, whereas accident took place in the year 1993 and that the period of limitation in filing the application was specified in the Act. It is further submitted that the claims tribunal has ignored the basic principles of Limitation Act and the claim application was not maintainable in view of Article-44 of the Limitation Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Sita Devi and another versus Shailendra Kumar Sinha and another, reported in 2007(2) JLJR 44 and submitted that this Court while dealing with the said case recorded its findings in para-12 that claim application after ten years from the date of death and that too, in the manner not provided in the rule, is not maintainable. It is submitted that in view of the said decision, the claim is required to be put forward during reasonable time. There cannot be indefinite period for filing the claim application i.e. the intention of the legislation.
Learned counsel appearing for the original claimants submitted that learned tribunal has properly considered the submissions made before it. It is submitted that the original claimants are coming from very poor background and they are the rustic villagers, therefore, they could not file the claim application within reasonable time. It is further submitted that the limitation, which was prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act was taken away by the Parliament by way of amendment in the year 1994. It is also submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus C. Padma and another, reported in 2004(1) JCR 34 (SC) has decided this issue. Learned counsel for the opponents, while referring para-12 of the said judgment, pointed out that this is a beneficial legislation and therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with this issue decided that such technicalities of the limitation should not come in the way of the claimants. It is submitted that it is not proper for the insurance company to raise such plea.
Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the order passed by the court-below, it appears that the court-below has rightly and properly considered the entire issue/ preliminary objection raised by the insurance company in accordance with law. It appears that by way of amendment, limitation prescribed in the Motor Vehicles Act has been taken away and para-12 of the judgment, which has been referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the original claimants in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus C. Padma and another, reported in 2004(1) JCR 34 (SC), is relevant for the purpose of deciding this case, which is reproduced here-in-below:
"12. Learned counsel for the appellant, next contended that since no period of limitation has been prescribed by the Legislature, Article 137 of the Limitation Act may be invoked, otherwise, according to him stale claims would be encouraged leading to multiplicity of litigation for non-prescribing the period of limitation. We are unable to countenance with the contention of the appellant for more than one reason. Firstly, such an Act like Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, if otherwise the claim is found genuine. Secondly, it is a self-contained Act which prescribes mode of filing the application, procedure to be followed and award to be made. The Parliament, in its wisdom, realised the grave injustice and injury being caused to the heirs and legal representatives of the victims who suffer bodily injuries/die in accidents, by rejecting their claim petitions at the threshold on the ground of limitation, and purposely deleted sub-section (3) of Section 166, which provided the period of limitation for filing the claim petitions and this being the intendment of the Legislature to give effective relief to the victims and the families of the motor accidents untrammeled by the technicalities of the limitation, invoking of Article 137 of the Limitation Act would defeat the intendment of the Legislature."
Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner- insurance company cannot be accepted in view of the aforesaid judgment.
The judgment, which has been cited by the learned counsel for the insurance company in the case of Sita Devi and another versus Shailendra Kumar Sinha and another, reported in 2007(2) JLJR 44 this issue has not been discussed in detail. Moreover, learned Apex Court observed in its judgment referred above that intention of the legislation is required to be considered while deciding the case. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial/benevolent legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, if otherwise the claim is found genuine. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-insurance company submitted that necessary direction may be issued to the lower court that since the claim petition is filed at belated stage, claim/prayer with regard to interest on the awarded amount may not be granted.
This court is of the view that no such direction is required to be issued.
However, it is open for the insurance company to raise this plea before the claim tribunal and in turn, claim tribunal will decide the same in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observation, this civil revision stands rejected.
.
(P.P. Bhatt, J.) S.B.