Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.R.NAYAK
Bakkavenkamma - Appellant
Versus
deepanarisi Reddy - Respondent
Decided On : 09-14-95
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - LIMITATION - AMENDMENT - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - [SECTION 110-A(3), 166(3)] - Whether the amendment brought about by Amendment Act 54 of 1994, deleting subsection (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, applies retrospectively, thereby saving a petition filed after the limitation period prescribed under the old Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Bakka Venkamma, sustained injuries in an accident involving a motor vehicle on 16-3-1989. She filed a petition for compensation on 24-11-1990 under Section 110-A of the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which was repealed and replaced by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, with effect from 1-7-1989. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) dismissed the petition as barred by limitation, holding that the delay in filing the application beyond 12 months from the date of the accident could not be condoned under the new Act. The appellant challenged this decision in appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the law of limitation governing an action is the law prevailing at the time of institution of the claim petition, not the law prevailing at the date of the accident. The court further held that the amendment brought about by Amendment Act 54 of 1994, deleting subsection (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, does not apply retrospectively to save a petition filed after the limitation period prescribed under the old Act. The court reasoned that the right to claim compensation was not affected by the substitution of one Act with another, and that the liberty to apply for a right is not in itself an accrued right or privilege.
Issues: 1. Whether the law of limitation governing an action is the law prevailing at the time of institution of the claim petition or the law prevailing at the date of the accident. 2. Whether the amendment brought about by Amendment Act 54 of 1994, deleting subsection (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, applies retrospectively to save a petition filed after the limitation period prescribed under the old Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The law of limitation governing an action is the law prevailing at the time of institution of the claim petition, not the law prevailing at the date of the accident. 2. The amendment brought about by Amendment Act 54 of 1994, deleting subsection (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, does not apply retrospectively to save a petition filed after the limitation period prescribed under the old Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the MACT dismissing the appellant's petition for compensation was upheld.
( 1 ) A short but an important question of general importance which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether a petition filed by an injured person before me Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for short m. A. C. T. on 24-11-1990 for compensation in respect of an accident which took place on 16-3-1989 is hit by limitation or it is saved by the subsequent change in law brought about by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 54 of 1994 which was brought into force with effect from 14-11-1994. This precise question arises for consideration and resolution in the back drop of the following facts: it is the case of the appellant Bakka Venkamma that she sustained certain physical injuries on account of an accident occurred on 16-3-1989 involving a motor vehicle owned by the second respondent, driven by the first respondent and insured by the third respondent Insurance Company. The appellant filed original petition for compensation on 24-11-1990. This O. P. purported to have been filed under Sec. l 10-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It is relevant to note at this stage itself that by the time the O. P. was filed on 24-11-1990 the old Act was repealed and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short the Act, was enacted and brought into force with effect from 1-7-1989. Therefore the original petition should have been filed under Sec. l66 (l) of the Act and not under Sec. ll0-A of the old Act. When the accident took place on 16-3-1989 the old Act was in operation. The owner and the driver of the motor vehicle did not contest the claim of the appellant before the M. A. C. T. Only the third respondent Insurance company contested the claim by filing a counter. After filing the counter and after the M. A. C. T. framed the issues the Insurance Company raised an additional issue contending that the original petition filed by the appellant on 24-11-1990 was hit by limitation and therefore it was incompetent and not maintainable. In that view of the matter the M. A. C. T. framed an additional issue relating to the question whether the original petition filed by the appellant is hit by limitation or not and the M. A. C. T. by its order under appeal dated 12-7-1991 upheld the contention of the Insurance Company and held that the O. P. filed by the appellant is hit by limitation and therefore not maintainable. In that view of the matter the original petition is dismissed.
( 2 ) AT the outset I deem it fit to place on record my appreciation for the services rendered by Sri M. Narender Reddy as Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant as well as Sri Kota Subba Rao, the learned Counsel and a member of this Bar in assisting the Court placing all the relevant authorities before the court. In this case Sri P. V. R. Mohan Rao has filed vakalat for the appellant. When this case was posted for final hearing before this Court on 7-9-1995 none appeared nor any representation was made on behalf of the appellant or her counsel. Since it was a final hearing matter and filed by an illiterate village woman seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by her in the accident occurred on 16-3-1989 involving the vehicle owned by the second respondent and driven by the first respondent and insured by the third respondent- insurance company, I thought it not just to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution and requested Sri M. Narender Reddy, a learned member of mis bar to appear as Amicus Curiae and argue the matter on behalf of the appellant. Sri M. Narender Reddy readily agreed and assisted the Court. Sri Kota Subba rao who quite often appears for the Insurance Companies also came forward to assist the Court and accordingly he was also heard in the case.
( 3 ) SRI Narender Reddy, the learned Counsel submitted that the rejection of the O. P. by the M. A. C. T. on the ground that it was hit by limitation was justified on the date of the order i. e. , 12-7-1991. According to him, when O. P. was filed on24-ll-1990matapplication was obviously under Se
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
