Jharkhand High Court
M/S.Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Smt.Parvati Pramanik & Ors. on 16 March, 2010
Equivalent citations: AIR 2010 JHARKHAND 81, 2011 AAC 1569, 2010 (2) AIR JHAR R 462, 2010 A I H C 3475, (2010) 90 ALLINDCAS 498 (JHA), 2010 (90) ALLINDCAS 498, (2010) 2 JCR 609 (JHA), (2010) 3 CIVILCOURTC 533, (2010) 2 ACC 828, 2011 AAC 1569 (JHA), (2010) 3 TAC 441, (2011) 3 ACJ 1585, (2011) 2 CURCC 61
Author: M. Y. Eqbal
Bench: M. Y. Eqbal, Padeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 21 of 2008
M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Jamshedpur... Appellant
Versus
1. Smt. Parvati Pramanik
2. Banmali Pramanik
3. Subodh Prasad
...... ... ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. Y. EQBAL
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PADEEP KUMAR
------
For the Appellant: Mrs. Nisha Thakur
For the Respondents: M/s. Ananda Sen, C. Mukherjee
------
Reserved on: 19.2.2010 Pronounced on: 16th March, 2010
M. Y. Eqbal, J. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the
judgment and award 11.9.2007 passed by the Addl. District Judge-cum-
Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Seraikella in Compensation
Case No.27 of 2008 whereby he has allowed the claim application filed
by the claimants-respondents and awarded a compensation of
Rs.1,22,000/- on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle
accident.
2. The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased, filed the
aforementioned claim case stating inter alia that on 11.6.1990 their son ,
Nimai Pramanik, along with other passengers were travelling in a bus
bearing Registration No.BPS-9158. Because of rash and negligent
driving of bus, it met with an accident and the deceased, Nimai
Pramanik, succumbed to the injuries. The accident was reported to the
Chandil Police Station and post mortem examination was conducted in
Jamshedpur Medical College. The claimants stated that, the deceased
was their only son aged about 16 years and was working as a supplier
in a hotel at Jamshedpur and was earning Rs.2400/- per month. The
claimants further stated that on the date of accident, the claimant-
mother was only 34 years of age. Because of death of their son, the
claimants fell under mental shock which continued for a long time and,
therefore, they could file the claim application only in the year 2005.
3. The appellant-Insurance Company contested the case by filing
written statement stating inter alia that the accident was caused by a
2 M.A.No.21/2008
truck which struck the bus and after causing accident, the truck fled
away. The appellant-Insurance Company also took a defence that the
claim application is barred by limitation inasmuch as the claim case
was filed after 15 years from the date of accident. The Tribunal framed
as many as seven issues and decided all the issues in favour of the
claimants. While deciding issue No.1 regarding maintainability of the
claim application, the Tribunal has also discussed the question of
limitation raised by the appellant-Insurance Company. After referring
relevant provisions of the Act and the amendment brought therein, the
Tribunal held that the claim case is maintainable and the same cannot
be rejected on the ground of limitation.
4. Mrs. Nisha Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
assailed the impugned award mainly on the ground that the Tribunal
has committed error of law in holding that the claim case was
maintainable even after 15 years from the date of accident. Learned
counsel further submitted that the owner of the bus violated the terms
and conditions of the insurance policy by carrying passengers beyond
the capacity. Hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay
compensation. On the issue of limitation, learned counsel relied upon
the decision rendered in the case of Dhannalal vs D.P. Vijayvargiya
and others [1996 A.C.J. 1013] and Vinod Gurudas Raikar vs National
Insurance Company Ltd and others [(1991) 4 S.C.C. 333].
5. First of all I would like to discuss the issue of limitation and
maintainability of the claim application.
6. So far the statutory provision with regard to limitation is
concerned, under the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the period of
limitation for filing application for compensation was six months from
the date of accident, but proviso to Section 110-A of the Act
empowered the Tribunal to entertain the application even after the
expiry of six months after having satisfied that the claimant was
prevented by sufficient cause from making such application. The Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force w.e.f. 1.7.1989. The corresponding
provision under the new Act is Section 166 (Section 110-A of 1939 Act).
Section 166(3) of the new Act prescribed a period of six months for
filing claim application, but the proviso of the said Section empowered
the Tribunal to entertain application after the expiry of the said period
of six months, but not later than 12 months, if it is satisfied that
3 M.A.No.21/2008
applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the
application in time. Finally sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act has
been omitted by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994. By virtue
of the Amendment Act, sub-section (3) of Section 166 was omitted
w.e.f. 14.11.1994, i.e. the date when the Amendment Act came into
force. The result is that after the omission of sub-section (3) of Section
166 w.e.f. 14.11.1994, there is now no limitation for filing claim
application before the Tribunal in respect of death or injury caused by a
motor vehicle accident.
7. The question that falls for consideration is as to the effect of the
omission of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act in the instant claim
case filed by the claimants-respondents. As per the claim application,
the accident took place on 11.6.1990, but the claim application was filed
in the year 2005. Admittedly, therefore, when the accident took place,
sub-section (3) of Section 166 of 1988 was in force. However, before the
claim case was filed, the said provision was omitted by virtue of Motor
Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994.
8. In the case of Dhannalal (supra), the fact of the case was that on
4.12.1990, the claimant while going on road, dashed by a scooter, as a result, he suffered serious injuries. He remained hospitalized till 27.9.1991. On 7.12.1991, he filed a claim case along with an application for condonation of four days' delay. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the claim petition. The said order was challenged in the High Court and the order was set aside holding that under sub-section (3) of Section 166, the power of condonation of delay by the Tribunal has been withdrawn. The High Court further held that the Tribunal can entertain the application after the expiry of six months, but not later than 12 months. The matter ultimately came to Supreme Court. The effect of omission of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act was examined by the Supreme Court and their Lordships held: -
"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 4 M.A.No.21/2008 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. 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."
9. In the case of Arjun Kondankal & Ors Vs. Rando Kandankal & Ors [2009(4) J.C.R. 369], a Division Bench of this Court was considering the similar question. In that case, the accident ook place on 10.2.1998 and the claim application was filed on 10.9.2001 i.e. after three years from the date of death of the deceased. The Tribunal took the view that since no limitation is provided under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable and in such case, the period of limitation is 3 years. Rejecting the view taken by the Tribunal, this Court held: -
"4. Prima facie we are of the view that the Tribunal has committed serious error of law in deciding the issue of limitation. Admittedly after repeal of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act, there is no limitation provided for filing application for compensation. The effect of omission of sub- section (3) is that there is no limitation for filing claim application before the Tribunal. The Parliament in its wisdom thought it proper not to put any restriction in the power of the Tribunal to entertain claim application for compensation in case of death or bodily injury by the use of the motor vehicle. Undoubtedly, the Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 1994 is beneficial piece of Legislation and, therefore, the rightful claim of the victims may not be defeated merely because of delay in filing the claim application."
10. In the case of New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. C. Padma and another [(2003) 7 S.C.C.C 713], the fact of the case was that the accident took place on 18.2.1989 and the respondent filed claim petition on 2.11.1995. The Claims Tribunal rejected the plea of limitation raised by the appellant-insurer and awarded compensation. The revision petition 5 M.A.No.21/2008 filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court. Thereafter, the Insurance Company moved the Supreme Court, Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court observed: -
"10. The ratio laid down in Dhannalal case applies with full force to the facts of the present case. When the claim petition was filed sub-section (3) of Section 166 had been omitted. Thus, the Tribunal was bound to entertain the claim petition without taking note of the date on which the accident took place. Faced with this situation, Mr Kapoor submitted that Dhannalal case does not consider Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act and therefore, needs to be reconsidered. We are unable to accept the submission. Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act, undoubtedly, provides that the repeal of a provision will not affect the continuance of the enactment so repealed and in operation at the time of repeal. However, this is subject to "unless a different intention appears". In Dhannalal case the reason for the deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 has been set out. It is noted that Parliament realized the grave injustice and injury caused to heirs and legal representatives of the victims of accidents if the claim petition was rejected only on the ground of limitation. Thus "the different intention"
clearly appears and Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act would not apply.
Their Lordships further observed:
12. The 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 the contention of the appellant for more than one reason. Firstly, such an Act like the 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 the mode of filing the application, procedure to be followed and award to be made.
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 untrammelled by the technicalities of the limitation, invoking of Article 137 of the Limitation Act would defeat the intendment of the legislature."
11. In the instant case, as noticed above, accident took place in 1990 and the claim application was filed in 2005. It appears that claimants are rustic villagers living in remote area of the district of Purulia, (Manbhum). From perusal of the evidence, it appears that the claimant 6 M.A.No.21/2008 who was examined as PW.1 has stated in cross-examination that he could not file claim case because he had no money to meet legal expenses.
12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held that the claim application cannot be thrown out on the ground of limitation. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal needs no interference by this Court.
13. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
(M. Y. Eqbal, J) Pradeep Kumar, J.
(Pradeep Kumar, J) Pandey/A.F.R.