V. P. MOHAN KUMAR, J.

( 1 ) A short question arises for consideration in this appeal. An accident took place on 10-1-1988 involving two k. s. r. t. c. buses. A claim petition was preferred on 10-7-1989 claiming compensation for the personal injuries sustained after the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force on 1-7-1989. Section 166 (3) provided that no application for compensation may be entertained by the tribunal after 6 months of the occurrence of the accident. The proviso further provided that an application may be entertained after six months if the claimant showed sufficient cause for the delay, but even such an application cannot be entertained after the lapse of twelve months.

( 2 ) IN this case, the accident as stated above took place on 10-1-1988. The claimant was sandwiched between two k. s. r. t. c. buses, resulting in his ribs being fractured. The claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- under various heads. The respondent denied the accident and disputed the claim.

( 3 ) THE tribunal after evidence held that the accident was aresult of rash and negligent driving of the buses in question. It assessed the compensation payable at Rs. 21,400/- (wrongly stated as Rs. 20,400/-) together with interest at 9%. But, it held that the claim petition is barred by limitation. On this view the claim petition was dismissed. The claimant has come up in appeal.

( 4 ) AS it is, the application initiated is beyond twelve months from the date of the accident. Clearly it is barred by limitation. But, while the appeal was pending by virtue of the motor vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994, enacted on 14-11-1994, Section 166 (3) was omitted. The contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the application cannot be treated as barred by limitation in view of the omission of the sub-section from the statute.

( 5 ) BY this amending Act, Section 158 (6) of the Principal Actwas amended in the following manner:" (6) as soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this Section is completed by a police officer, the officer in-charge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of recording of information or, as the case may be, on completion of such report to the claims tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer, and where a copy is made available to the owner, he shall also within thirty days of receipt of such report, forward the same to such claims tribunal and insurer". it has now the duty of the officer in-charge of the police station to forward the report within 30 days after the accident to the nearest claims tribunal. Section 166 (4) was also amended as:" (4) the claims tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under this act". (emphasis supplied) Section 166 (3) which prescribed the period of limitation was omitted by means of Section 53 of the amending act. The relevant provision reads as follows:" (B) sub-section (3) shall be omitted". it is to be noted that this omission simpliciter did not make any provision to control the proceedings pending on the date of the amendment. This is a partial repeal and it is relevant to advert that when the object of the act is only to repeal a portion of an Act, the words "shall be omitted" is normally used (see halsbury's laws of england, 3rd edition. Volume 36, page 462) hence the amending Act, 1994 repealed section 166 (3) from the statute book, we are therefore to consider the effect of this repeal to a pending proceedings.

( 6 ) BY means of Section 217 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the 1939 act was repealed. By means of the amending act 1994, there was a partial repeal of Section 166 of the 1988 act. The question then that might arise is the effect of Section 6 of General Clauses Act, 1897.

( 7 ) AN appeal is a continu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document