Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.L.N.SHARMA
Mohd.Riyazuddin - Appellant
Versus
General Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. - Respondent
Decided On : 08-03-90
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 110-A CL. 3 - LIMITATION - CONDONATION OF DELAY - APPLICABILITY OF LAW - VESTED RIGHT - RETROSPECTIVITY - PROCEDURE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, along with an application to condone the delay of 1283 days in filing the claim petition. The District Judge dismissed the application on the grounds that the delay was not properly explained and that the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which came into force after the filing of the claim petition, restricted the power of the Court to condone the delay for a period of more than six months.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the law of limitation applicable to the claim petition is the law that was in force on the date of filing the claim petition, which was the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The Court further held that the petitioner had a vested right to file the claim petition under the old Act, and this right could not be taken away by the new Act. The Court also held that the new Act did not apply to pending proceedings, and therefore, the provision in the new Act restricting the power of the Court to condone the delay did not apply to the petitioner's case.
Issues: 1. Whether the law of limitation applicable to the claim petition is the law that was in force on the date of filing the claim petition or the law that came into force after the filing of the claim petition? 2. Whether the petitioner had a vested right to file the claim petition under the old Act, and whether this right could be taken away by the new Act? 3. Whether the new Act applied to pending proceedings, and whether the provision in the new Act restricting the power of the Court to condone the delay applied to the petitioner's case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The law of limitation applicable to a suit is the law in force at the date of the institution of the suit irrespective of the date of accrual of the cause of action. 2. A vested right cannot be taken away by any enactment unless the enactment is given retrospective effect expressly or by necessary implication. 3. A new law does not apply to pending proceedings unless there is a provision in the new law to that effect.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the revision petition and remitted the matter back to the lower Court for fresh consideration. The Court directed the lower Court to give both parties an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases and to dispose of the matter in accordance with law.
( 1 ) INITIALLY, the petitioner preferred C. R. P. No. 266 of 1990 to this Court against an order of the District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Clains Tribunal, nalgonda dismissing the application filed to condone the delay in filing the claim petition under Section 110-A Cl. 3 of Motor Vehicles Act (Act 4 of 1939 ). It is admitted that revision petition is not maintainable and only c. M. A. lies against the said order. (Vide Babumiyam and Mastan. The counsel for the petitioner requested permission to convert the revision petition into C. M. A. , in view of the Judgment of the Division Bench referred to supra (1 ). The limitation as well as stamp which is required to be paid on Memorandum of Appeal are the same for both the revision as well as c. M. A. and the appeal also lies to this Court. So, in the interests of justice, the petitioner is permitted to convert the above Revision Petition no. 266 of 1990 as C. M. A. Having given permission, I am proceeding to dispose of the matter.
( 2 ) THE revision is filed against an order of the learned District Judge dated 16-11-1989 in I. A. No. 1182 of 1987. The relevant facts are as follows:
( 3 ) THE petitioner filed the claim petition under the provisions of motor Vehicles Act (Act 4 of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) along with I. A. No. 1182/87 for condoning the delay of 1283 days in filing the claim petition. The petitioner stated that on 8-11-1983 at 6. 30 P. M. , the driver of A. P. S. R. T. C. Bus bearing No. APS 4710 drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner at Bhongir Depot and hit the appellant while it was taking a turn. Due to the accident, he suffered serious fractures and as a consequence, he was permanently disabled. He stated that he was not able to file the claim petition within the time on the ground that he was illiterate and he was not aware of the procedure ; that he has taken treatment for fractures for a very long time ; that he is still suffering with pain and that therefore, he could not file the claim petition within the period of limitation. Hence, he prayed for condoning the delay in filing the claim petition for compensation.
( 4 ) THE same was resisted by the respondent denying that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus and that the affidavit does not disclose reasons for condoning the inordinate delay in filing the claim petition.
( 5 ) THE learned District Judge, Nalgonda dismissed the application on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the delay was not propely explained in spite of affording sufficient opportunity by granting adjournments and the petitioner has not adduced any evidence, neither he examined himself as a witness to show that he was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the petition within time etc. , and secondly on the ground that by the time the application was taken up for disposal Motor Vehicles Act 59 of 1988 came into force which prescribed the period of limitation of six months and also restricted the power of the Court to condone the delay for a period of more than six months thereafter. The present revision is filed questioning the said order.
( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following points : 1. The law of limitation as existed on the date of filing of the claim petition alone applies and not the subsequent changes brought about either by amendment or by repeal. The present application for compensation having been filed with a petition to condone the delay on 8-5-1987 itself, the law of limitation applicable as on that date alone will govern the situation and not the provisions of limitation contained in Motor Vehicles Act 59 of 1988 which came into force on 1-7-1989. 2. There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act 59 of 1988 (hereinafter referred to as new Act ) making the provisions of the new Act applicable 10 pending proceedings. 3. Section 217 of the new Act specifically saved the application of
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
