Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhadu And Anr. vs Satish Nayak And Anr. on 13 August, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(4)MPHT98
Author: Shantanu Kemkar
Bench: Shantanu Kemkar
JUDGMENT Shantanu Kemkar, J.
1. This is a claimant's appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order dated 8-12-1995 passed by the Additional District Judge (MACT), Dindori in Claim Case No. 3/93 by which the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition holding it to be barred by limitation.
2. In brief, the facts are on 8-5-1992 Brahaspatiabai mother of the appellants was dashed by a motor cycle bearing registration No. MUJ 4727 as a result of which she died on the spot. The misfortune of the appellants continued further as their father was murdered within few days after the accidental death of their mother. The appellants being minor filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') on 11-2-1993 through their uncle Dodal Singh seeking compensation for the death of their mother. The claim petition was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the claim petition. The Claims Tribunal after hearing the parties rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition and consequently the claim petition was dismissed holding it to be barred by limitation.
3. Shri Pradeep Naolekar, learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the view taken by the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition holding it to be barred by limitation is not sustainable in law. He placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in case of Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya [1997 (1) MPLJ 195] and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma and Anr. [(2003) 7 SCC 713]. On the other hand Shri Sunil Jain, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri N.S. Ruprah, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 supported the impugned order.
4. At the relevant time the limitation for filing the application seeking compensation under Section 166 was as per Sub-Clause (3) of Section 166, which reads as under :--
"(3) No application for such compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident:
Provided that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of six months but not later than twelve months, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time."
5. In case of Dhannalal (supra) the Supreme Court has observed as under:--
"Section 110-A (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 prescribed a period of 6 months for filing an application for compensation from the date of the accident and vested power in the Tribunal to entertain such application even after the expiry of the said period of 6 months. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 repealed the earlier provision and prescribed 6 months' period of limitation in Sub-section (3) of Section" 166. The proviso to Section 166(3) allowed the Tribunal to entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of 6 months but not later than 12 months from the date of accident. However, the aforesaid Sub-section (3) of Section 166 was omitted by Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994, which came into force with effect from 14-11-1994. The effect of the said amendment is that there is no limitation for filing claim petition before the Tribunal in respect of any accident. It does not appear that the omission of Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act of 1988 has been done retrospectively. But at the same time, there is nothing in the Amending Act to indicate that benefit of omission/deletion of Section 166(3) is not to be extended to pending cases where a plea of limitation has been raised. In this background the deletion of Sub-section (3) of Section 166 should be given full effect so that the object of deletion of Sub-section by the Parliament is not defeated. If a victim of the accident or heirs of the deceased victim can prefer claim for compensation although not being preferred earlier because of the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed, the victim or the heirs of the deceased shall be in a worse position if the question of condonation of delay in filing the claim petition is pending either before the Tribunal, High Court or the Supreme Court. The matter will be different if any claimant having filed a petition for claim beyond time which has been rejected by the Tribunal or the High Court, the claimant does not challenge the same and allows the said judicial order to become final. The aforesaid Amending Act shall be of no help to such claimant, the reason being that a judicial order saying that such petition of claimants was barred by limitation has attained finality. But that principle will not govern cases where the dispute as to whether petition for claim having been filed beyond the period of twelve months from the date of the accident is pending consideration either before the Tribunal, High Court or Supreme Court. In such cases, the benefit of amendment of Sub-section (3) of Section 166 should be extended."
In case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. C. Padma and Anr. (supra), the Supreme Court has followed its earlier view taken in case of Dhannalal (supra).
6. The. ratio of the aforesaid judgments is fully applicable to the . facts of the present case. In the present case the claim petition was filed on 11-2-1993 and was pending when the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 came into force with effect from 14-11-1994 and, therefore, their case was to be treated in accordance with Amended Act in which there is no limitation for filing claim petition. The impugned order dismissing the claim petition is clearly against the mandate of the law and, therefore, deserves to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The claim petition filed by the appellant is held to be within limitation. The case is remanded to the learned Claims Tribunal to decide the same in accordance with law,
8. Parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 27th September, 2004. Office is directed to send the record back to the Claims Tribunal, immediately. The Claims Tribunal is expected to decide the claim petition as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of receipt of record. No orders as to cost.