Jharkhand High Court
Arjun Kondankal & Ors. vs Rando Kondankal & Ors. on 15 July, 2009
Author: M. Y. Eqbal
Bench: M. Y. Eqbal, Jaya Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 11 of 2006
Arjun Kondankal and others ... ... ... Appellants
Versus
Rando Kondankal and others ... ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. Y. EQBAL
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
------
For the Appellants: Mr. R.P. Gupta
For the Respondents: M/s. N.K. Prasad, Alok Lal, R. Singh
------
Reserved on: 08.7.2009 Pronounced on: 15th July, 2009
M.Y. Eqbal, J. This appeal by the claimants-appellants is directed against
the judgment and award dated 7.9.2005 passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Chaibasa in Compensation Case No.32
of 2008 whereby he has dismissed the claim application on the
ground of limitation.
2. The appellants filed an application for compensation on
account of death of their brother in a motor accident which
occurred on 10.2.1998. The deceased was aged about 10.2.1998 and
was working as a daily-waged labourer. While coming from his
work in the evening, he was dashed by a tractor which was coming
in high speed. The Tribunal framed the following issues for
consideration: -
1) Is the suit maintainable in its present form?
2) Whether the claimants have proper cause of action to
file the suit?
3) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation, as it has
been filed after more than three years of the alleged
accident?
4) Whether the driver of the offending tractor was driving
the tractor rashly and negligently which caused the
accident?
5) Whether claimants are entitled for compensation and if
they are then from whom and for what amount they are
entitled?
6) Whether the claimants are entitled to any other relief or
reliefs?
3. The Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimants
except the issue of limitation after taking notice that the deceased
2 M.A. No.11 of 2006
died 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 was of 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
three years. For better appreciation, paragraph 10 of the impugned
judgment is quoted herein below: -
"Issue No.3: From perusal of record it appears
that suit for compensation was filed on 10.9.01. From the
claim petition and Ext.1 and 2 it appears deceased died on
10.2.98. Thus this suit has been filed after more than three years of death of the deceased. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of claimants submitted that after repealing of sub-section 3 of section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act there remains no limitation to file a suit for compensation for loss caused in a road accident. Learned counsel submitted that provision for compensation under Motor Vehicle Act are made as a social legislation, hence no limitation has been provided. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.Ps. admitted that this enactment has been made as a social legislation. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. no.3 submitted that though no provision of limitation has been given in M.V. Act there must have some limitation to file such suit.
11. From perusal of record it is clear that this suit has been filed after more than three years of the accident from which cause of action arose. In M.V. Act previously by sub- section 3 of section 166 limitation of six month was provided but there was discretion to tribunal to condone the delay in appropriate cases up to one year. After repealing of sub-section 3 of section 166 this provision was abolished. It does not mean that after abolition of this provision, no limitation remains to file the suit for compensation arising out of accident. If there remains no limitation a state of chaos will occur. A great great grand son of deceased can file a suit against great great grand son of an owner of the offending vehicle for compensation for the loss caused in any road accident, occurred hundreds of years ago. It is settled law that suit filed under special law are guided by limitation Act, 1963, if no enactment has been made in the relevant law. Article 113 of Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable in such cases and period of limitation in such cases is three years. In this case on date of accident right to sue accrued. This suit is certainly barred by the provision of article 113 of the Limitation Act. In this case no reason has been shown on behalf of claimants for filing the suit after a lapse of three years. No prayer for condonation of delay was also made by the claimants. Thus considering the facts and circumstances of the case I hold that suit is barred by provision of Limitation Act 1963. Accordingly this issue is decided against the claimants."
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, 3 M.A. No.11 of 2006 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.
5. In the instant case, it has come in evidence that the deceased was aged 22 years and was a young man. He died leaving behind his mother and two minor brothers. The mother subsequently died out of shock due to death of her only earning son. The mother and two minor brothers were dependent on the earning of the deceased. On these admitted facts and evidence, the Tribunal ought to have entertained the application for the grant of compensation.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the finding recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of limitation holding that the claim application is fit to be entertained. Since the Tribunal has also decided other issues including the quantum of compensation, we affirm those findings and hold that the appellants are entitled to compensation as assessed by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment.
(M. Y. Eqbal, J) (Jaya Roy, J) Manoj/AFR