Point of Law : Benefit under Act, cannot be taken away on a technical aspect that too of limitation, thus, the Trial Court having applied Section 5 of Limitation Act to the fact situation, Court do not find any infirmity thereof.

ORDER :

1. In view of the proposed order to be passed, notice to respondents is dispensed with.

2. The petitioner-Insurance Company is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i. Quash the order dated 05.07.2023 passed by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Raichur in FR MVC No.575/2022, the copy of which is at Annexure-A.

ii. Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

3. On account of an accident which occurred various persons filed claim petitions before the Trial Court in MVC Nos.575/2022, 576/2022 and 577/2022. The present petition arises out of an order dated 05.07.2023 passed by the III-Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raichur in FR MVC No.575/2022 on an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, condoning delay of 5 months in filing the claim petition.

4. The submission of Sri Mohd.Abdul Quayum, learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company is that in view of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’) no claim petition can be entertained, unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident. In that view of the matter, he submits that the provision of the Limitation Act would not be applicable to condone the delay, if any, in filing the claim petition.

5. The submission is that in view of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the MV Act, the operation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act conferring power on the Tribunal to condone the delay is excluded and on this ground, he submits that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is required to be set aside and consequently, the claim petition liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard Sri. Mohd. Abdul Quayum, learned counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company and perused the papers.

7. Before adverting to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, I would advert to the context of the matter. The claim petition came to be filed by the claimant seeking for compensation on account of an accident where the claimant who is a minor, suffered from fracture on the lateral side of the left leg, upper right leg and certain other wounds requiring major surgeries and hospitalization of the claimant and the claimant being laid up for a period of two months. Suffice it to say that the claim petition had been filed in order to redress and claim compensation for an accident which has occurred. Whether the accident has occurred and the insurance policy covers the same is a matter of trial. The only issue raised in the present matter is as regards the limitation period.

8. Section 166 of the MV Act provides for a claim of compensation to be made on account of either injury or death being caused due to a motor vehicle accident. It is amply clear that section 166 of the MV Act is a beneficial provision which is contained in the MV Act as amended from time to time to provide benefit to any injured or to the legal representatives of a deceased. The object of section 166 of the MV Act being beneficial, any provision to be applied relating thereto would also, in my considered opinion, be required to be applied beneficially.

9. Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides for condonation of delay wherever any claim petition, appeal, etc., are filed beyond the period of limitation and provides discretion to the Court to consider the reasons made out in an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and if sufficient cause is made out to condone the delay. As aforesaid MV Act being a beneficial enactment Section 5 of the Limitation Act being enacted to provide succor to persons who have come to Court late, but with a valid reason, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would also have to be considered beneficially and there being no bar under the MV Act for applying the principles under section 5 of the Limitation Act, I am of the considered opinion that it cann