Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Manju vs Bhagwan on 28 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24072
1 CR-618-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 28th OF AUGUST, 2025
CIVIL REVISION No. 618 of 2024
SMT. MANJU
Versus
BHAGWAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankit Patidar - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
With consent of the party heard finally.
2. This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 15.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Member, MACT, Dharmapuri, District Dhar in MJC No.1/2023, whereby application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, filed by the petitioner has been rejected.
3. Brief facts leading to the civil revision is that on 03/03/2019, the Husband of petitioner was on his way heading towards village Sala, when he reached in front of Hanuman temple at village sala at the same time driver of respondent no 1. bearing motor cycle no. MP-11-MZ-9166 driving rashly and was on high speed, caused accident, as a result Husband of petitioner suffered grievous hurt and injury. Thereafter he died during treatment. Petitioner filed a claim case along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 before the Additional Member, MACT, Dharampuri, District Dhar, which got dismissed vide the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the present petition.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 01-09-2025 18:50:29NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24072 2 CR-618-2024
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case while rejecting the application. The tribunal committed error in not properly considering the applicability of the amendment in Motor Vehicle Act. Further the amendment in section 166(3) Motor vehicle act 1988 came in force and implemented on the accidents which arose after the period of 01/04/2022, whereas in the present case, accident occurred before 01.04.2022 prior to the amendment. On the above grounds, it is requested that the present petition be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.
5. Counsel has also relied upon the judgment in the cases of New India Insurance Co. Vs. Padma (2003) 7 SCC 713, Dhana Lal Vs. D. P. Viay Vargiya 1996 ACJ 1013 SC, Purohit And Company vs. Khatoonbee, 2017 ACJ 1255 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein it is held that when sub-section (3) of Section 166 has been omitted, then the Tribunal has to entertain a claim petition without taking note of the date on which such accident had taken place. The claim petitions cannot be thrown out on the ground that such claim petitions were barred by time when sub-section (3) of Section 166 was in force. It need not be impressed that Parliament from time to time has introduced amendments in the old Act as well as in the new Act in order to protect the interests of the victims of the accidents and their heirs if the victims die.
6. In support of his contentions, counsel also placed reliance upon the case of Antony Sahaya Sundar vs. K. Vijayan and Ors. passed by Madras High Court in CRPD (MD) No.481/2023; Parvathi & Ors. vs. Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. [2024 ACJ 390]; Vikas Manikpuri vs. Manraj Toppo and Ors. [2024 ACJ 536].
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 01-09-2025 18:50:29NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24072 3 CR-618-2024
7. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.
8. On this aspect, the extracts of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. C. Padma & Anr. [(2003) 7 SCC 713], it is worth to quote here below :-
9. This Court in Dhannalal's case (supra) , after examining the effect of the various amendments that have been brought about in the Act, stated in paragraphs 6 and 7 as under:-
6."Before the scope of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act is examined, it may be pointed out that the aforesaid sub- section (3) of Section 166 of the Act has been omitted by Act 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which came in force w.e.f. 14.11.1994. The effect of the Amending Act is that w.e.f. 14.11.1994 there is no limitation for filing claims before the Tribunal in respect of any accident. It can be said that Parliament realised the grave injustice and injury which was being caused to the heirs and legal representatives of the victims who died in accidents by rejecting their claim petitions only on ground of limitation. It is a matter of common knowledge that majority of the claimants for such compensation are ignorant about the period during which such claims should be preferred.
After the death due to the accident of the breadearner of the family, in many cases such claimants are virtually on the streets. Even in cases where the victims escape death some of such victims are hospitalised for months if not for years. In the present case itself the applicant claims that he met with the accident on 4.12.1990 and he was being treated as an indoor patient till 27.9.1991. According to us, in its wisdom, Parliament rightly thought that prescribing a period of limitation and restricting Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 01-09-2025 18:50:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24072 4 CR-618-2024 the power of the Tribunal to entertain any claim petition beyond the period of twelve months from the date of the accident was harsh, inequitable and in many cases was likely to cause injustice to the claimants. The present case is a glaring example where the appellant has been deprived by the order of the High Court from claiming the compensation because of delay of only four days in preferring the claim petition.
7."In this background, now it has to be examined as to what is the effect of omission of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act. From the amending Act it does not appear that the said sub-section (3) has been deleted retrospectively. But at the same time, there is nothing in the amending Act to show that benefit of deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 is not to be extended to pending claim petitions where a plea of limitation has been raised. The effect of deletion of sub-section (3) from Section 166 of the Act can be tested by an illustration. Suppose an accident had taken place two years before 14.11.1994 when sub-section (3) was omitted from Section 166. For one reason or the other no claim petition had been filed by the victim or the heirs of the victim till 14.11.1994. Can a claim petition be not filed after 14.11.1994 in respect of such accident? Whether a claim petition filed after 14.11.1994 can be rejected by the Tribunal on the ground of limitation saying that the period of twelve months which had been prescribed when sub-section (3) of Section 166 was in force having expired the right to prefer the claim petition had been extinguished and shall not be revived after deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 w.e.f. 14.11.1994? According to us, the answer should be in negative.
09. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Shanti Misra, Adult reported in (1975) 2 SCC 840 has held as under:
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 01-09-2025 18:50:29NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24072 5 CR-618-2024
7. In our opinion taking recourse to the proviso appended to subsection (3) of section 110A for excusing the delay made in the filing of the application between the date of the accident and the date of the constitution of the Tribunal is not correct.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or the proviso to sub- section (3) of the section 110A of the Act are meant to condone the default of the party on the ground of sufficient cause. But if a party is not able to file an application for no fault of his but because the Tribunal was not in existence, it will not be a case where it can be said that the "applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time" within the meaning of the proviso. The time taken between the date of the accident and the constitution of the Tribunal cannot be condoned under the proviso. Then, will the application be barred under sub-section (3) of section 110A? Our answer is in the negative and or two reasons:
(1) Time for the purpose of filing the application under section 110A did not start running before the constitution of the Tribunal. Time had started running for the filing of the suit but before it had expired the forum was changed. And for the purpose of the changed forum, time could not be deemed to have started running before a remedy of going to the new forum is made available.
(2) Even though by and large the law of limitation has been held to be a procedural law, there are exceptions to this principle. Generally the law of limitation which is in vogue on the date of the commencement of the action governs it. But there are certain exceptions to this principle. The new law of limitation providing a longer period cannot revive a dead remedy. Nor can it suddenly extinguish vested right of action by providing for a shorter period of limitation.
10. In view of the aforesaid citations it is clear that even though the law of limitation is procedural law and hence, any amendment introduced therein will have retrospective effect, it cannot suddenly extinguish the vested right by providing for a shorter period of limitation. There should be an express or implied provision in the amending Act so as to confer retrospective operation to the amended provisions. Unless such an express or implied provisions is found in the amending Act, conferring retrospective operation, the same cannot be construed to have retrospective effect insofar as amendment to the period of limitation is Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 01-09-2025 18:50:29 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24072 6 CR-618-2024 concerned. Otherwise that will result in destroying the accrued/vested rights of the parties.
13. In the present case, the accident took place on 03.03.2019 and on the date, cause of action has arisen for filing a claim petition. There was no limitation for filing a claim petition on the date when cause of action arose. The amendment was introduced with effect from 01.04.2022 that the claim petition should be filed within a period of 6 months from the date of occurrence of the accident. In other words, even before the amendment was introduced, from the date of accident limitation had already expired, thereby completely destroying the rights of the injured person from making a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co- Ltd., Vs. C.Padma (Supra) in Paragraph No.12 has held as follows:
"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...."
15.In view of the above said deliberations, the accident having taken place on 03.03.2019, the limitation prescribed under the Amending Act 32 of 2019 is not applicable and hence, impugned order is hereby set aside and the Tribunal is directed to reconsider the claim petition afresh and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
16.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 01-09-2025 18:50:29NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:24072 7 CR-618-2024 (ALOK AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Signing time: 01-09-2025 18:50:29