IMPORTANT POINT
The rights and liabilities of parties are determined based on the law prevailing at the time of the cause of action, and the General Clauses Act, 1897 protects the rights accrued at the time of the cause of action.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company on the ground that the claim petition is time barred and hence, the claim petition is not maintainable.

2. The factum of accident is not in dispute.

3. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties on both sides. Perused the records.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accident was occurred on 27.07.2010 and claim petition was filed on 07.02.2020. An amendment was made to the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V. Act’) to Section 166 (3) prescribing period of limitations to prefer the claim petition within a period of six months from the date of the accident. Therefore, contended that the claim petition filed by the claimants is a time barred. But the Tribunal without considering this and allowed the claim petition. Hence, prays to allow the appeal by holding that the claim petition filed is time barred and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

5. On the hand the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the amendment made to the Section 166 (3) of the M.V. Act, came into force on 01.04.2022 prescribing limitation of six months. But the accident was occurred on 27.07.2010 and the claim was filed on 07.02.2020. Therefore, as on the date of the accident what is the law prevail that is applicable and the amendment made to Section 166 (3) is having prospective effect only. Therefore, submitted the claim petition is maintainable.

6. The earlier M.V. Act, 1939 was repealed and M.V. Act, 1988 came into force. This M.V. Act, 1988 came into force with effect from 01.07.1989. Sub Section (3) of Section 166 of M.V. Act prescribes limitation of six months for preferring claim petition from the date of the accident when the Act was came into force on 01.07.1989. Subsequently, Sub Section (3) of Section 166 was substituted removing limitation period by way of amendment by Act, No.54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994. Therefore, with effect from 14.11.1994 the limitation prescribing of six-month period for preferring claim petition from the date of the accident is removed. Therefore, with effect from 14.11.1994, there is no time limitation for preferring claim petition. Later on, the legislature in his wisdom re-introduced the Act No.32 of 2019 with effect from 01.04.2022 by bringing back the old provision of Section 166 (3) prescribing limitation period of six months. In the present case, the accident was occurred on 27.07.2010. The claim petition was filed on 07.02.2020. As on the date of the accident on 27.07.2010, there was no provision prescribing the limitation of six months for making claim within a period of six months. But the afore mentioned amendment by reintroducing the limitation period is by virtue of Act No.32 of 2019 is effective from 01.04.2022. Therefore, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company Smt. Preeti Shashank, argued that the claim petition is filed after more than 9 years from the date of accident. Therefore, argued the claim petition is time barred.

7. As discussed above, the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was substituted and repealed by the new Motor Vehicles, Act, 1988, the limitation to prefer the claim petition is six months by virtue of Sub Section (3) of Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Later on, the said Sub Section (3) of Section 166 was removed and the legislature had intended not to prescribe any limitation period for preferring the claim petition. In this re-introduced provision of Sub-Section (3) of Section 166 on the M.V. Act, limitation period prescribed is with effect from 01.04.2022. In between this interregnum period there was no limitation to prefer appeal. In this interregnum period the accident was occurred on 27.07.2010. Therefore, the right accrued to the claimants to prefer claim petition is the time as on the date of the accident. Unless, the legislature has made that it is having retrospective effect explicitly then the claimants have r