1. Death of a police constable in a vehicle accident — Claim petition under Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Dismissal on grounds of limitation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1257
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Balwinder Kaur – Petitioner
Versus
Punjab State Through Its Secretary & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.13668-13669 Of 2024, Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.28955-28956 of 2024) [Diary No(s).19297/2020]
Decided On : 02-12-2024
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR, Mr. Jitendra Bharti, Adv., Ms. Alka Goyal, Adv., Ms. Archana Preeti Gupta, Adv., Ms. Urvashi Sharma, Adv., Ms. Rubi Kumari, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Goel, AOR, Mr. Jitendra Bharti, Adv., Ms. Alka Goyal, Adv., Ms. Archana Preeti Gupta, Adv., Ms. Urvashi Sharma, Adv., Ms. Rubi Kumari, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR.
The court emphasized the need for compassion in claims related to deceased family members, allowing compensation despite procedural delays.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Claim petition for compensation - Appellant, a widow, lost her son in a police vehicle accident - Initial claim withdrawn, fresh claim filed but dismissed as time-barred - Court noted the introduction of a new time limit for claims and the peculiar circumstances of the appellant's situation - The court invoked Article 142 to grant a lump-sum compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the appellant, ensuring justice is served despite procedural hurdles. (Paras 7, 12, 14)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Applicability of Section 5 - The court discussed the factors constituting sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing claims, emphasizing the appellant's age and circumstances. (Paras 8, 10)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. State opposed the condonation of delay and the entertainment of the claim petition on merits. (Para 10 )
3. Compassionate appointment of a family member does not dislodge a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act; personal hardships may constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. (Para 6 , 8 , 13 )
4. Article 142 of the Constitution permits the court to grant compensation to ensure complete justice in exceptional humanitarian circumstances, overriding technical limitations. (Para 12 )
5. Appeals allowed — State directed to pay lump-sum compensation to the appellant under Article 142 of the Constitution. (Para 12 , 14 )
6. What is the legal position regarding the limitation period for filing claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
Prior to 14.11.1994, a time limit existed but Section 5 of the Limitation Act applied. From 14.11.1994 until 01.09.2019, the limitation period was removed. Since 01.09.2019, a claim petition must be filed within six months of the accident. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. Does the grant of a compassionate appointment to a family member bar a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act?
No, the offering of a compassionate appointment to a family member of the deceased cannot be used as a ground to dislodge or deny a claim for death under the Motor Vehicles Act. (Para 13 )
8. Can the court grant compensation despite technical bars such as limitation?
Yes, the Supreme Court can invoke its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to grant compensation and do complete justice between the parties in exceptional cases. (Para 12 )
ORDER :
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellant is a widow and about 80 years old. Her son, Gurinderjit Singh, was a Constable in Punjab Police. He was travelling in a police vehicle while on duty. The vehicle hit a tree and as a result of the accident, Gurinderjit Singh sustained fatal injuries leading to his death. The accident occurred on the intervening night of 26.10.1992. The deceased was unmarried. In terms of the prevailing Government Policy, his younger brother was appointed on compassionate grounds as a Constable in the police department under the ex gratia scheme. Some other monetary benefits were also given.
4. Thereafter, the appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, the “1988 Act”), but she withdrew it in January, 1996. She again filed a fresh claim petition on 09.02.2000.
5. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (in short, the “Tribunal”) dismissed the second petition as barred by time. The appellant approached the High Court, but her first appeal has been turned down vide the impugned order reiterating that dead and stale claims cannot be entertained at a belated stage.
6. Ordinarily, keeping in view the factor that the second son of the appellant was employed as a Constable under the ex gratia scheme or some terminal benefits were paid to the family, we would have declined to interfere with the impugned orders. However, what could not be unfortunately brought on record before the High Court is that the appellant lost her second son in 2006. She was left with no bread-earner and no family pension was paid to her. There is nothing to suggest that on the untimely demise of her second son, any financial aid or assistance was provided to the appellant.
7. There is an arguable case on the question of second claim petition filed by the appellant being time barred. Though we are not giving any final opinion to create a precedent for any other case, what seems to us is that sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the 1988 Act was introduced in a new avatar vide Act 32 of 2019 w.e.f. 01.09.2019, whereunder a claim petition can be filed within six months of the occurrence of the accident. Prior thereto, sub-section (3) was omitted by way of Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994. It seems that earlier thereto there was no time limit for filing claim petition, as held by this Court in Dhannalal vs. D.P. Vijayvargiya, 1996 (4) SCC 652.
8. It further appears that before 14.11.1994, there used to be a time limit for filing the claim petitions but then the High Court of Gujarat had taken the view in Mer Ramdas Bejanand Bhai vs. Harshad Bhai Mala Bhai, 1992 (1) ACC 717, that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was applicable in the case of an application for compensation filed before a claims Tribunal. The fact that the appellant lost her young son; she was widow; she had no source of livelihood; and she belongs to a remote area of Punjab etc., are several amongst the factors which ex facia would constitute a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay, if any, that would have occurred had the appellant filed a claim petition prior to 1994. These are all arguable issues. All that we have observed is that the Courts ought to have looked into these facts and then determined whether the appellant made out a case for condonation of delay before 1994 and if she was able to explain the delay between 1992 to 1994, could her claim petition be dismissed for want of limitation when the Legislature removed the impediment of limitation for filing claim petition before the Tribunal w.e.f. 14.11.1994.
9. Having held so, the question that falls for our consideration is whether we should remit the case to the claims Tribunal to decide the issues afresh?
10. In all fairness, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the observations made above in support of the appellant’s plea to condone the delay and/or entertain her claim petition on merits, we d
