The deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 removed the limitation for filing claims before the Tribunal in respect of any accident, but the claim must still be filed within a reasonable period to be considered genuine.

Birendra Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties under Order 41, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. This appeal has been preferred against dismissal of the claim petition by order dated 01.10.2012 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Saran at Chapra in Claim Case No. 30 of 2003.

3. Appellant No. 1 Ms. Gyatri Devi is wife and appellant no. 2 Bandana Kumari is daughter of Late Shyam Babu Soni. Shyam Babu Soni met with an accident on 07.01.1989 while he was going on a motorcycle as pillion rider and the offending truck bearing registration no. BRD 8483 dashed against the motorcycle causing instant death. The claim was preferred in the year, 2003.

4. The impugned order would reveal that the claim was dismissed as hopelessly barred by limitation and non-joinder of necessary party.

5. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that when the claim petition was filed, the statutory provision of sub-section 3 of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribing period of limitation was already deleted, hence, no limitation was there on the date of application.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhannalal vs. D.P. Vijayvargiya & Ors. reported in 1996(4) Supreme 281 for his submission that in Dhannalal's case, the accidental death was caused on 04.12.1990 and the claim was preferred on 07.12.1991 along with application for condonation of delay of 4 days only. The Tribunal had condoned the delay. The validity of the said order was challenged before the High Court and the High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal. The matter went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court observing in para 6 and 7 of the aforesaid judgment as follows:-

"6. Before the scope of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act is examined, it may be pointed out that the aforesaid sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act has been omitted by Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which came in force w.e.f. 14.11.1994. The effect of the Amending Act is that w.e.f. 14.11.1994 there is no limitation for filing claims before the Tribunal in respect of any accident. It can be said that Parliament realized the grave injustice and injury which was being caused to the heirs and legal representatives of the victims who died in accidents by rejecting their claim petitions only on ground of limitation. It is a matter of common knowledge that majority of the claimants for such compensation are ignorant about the period during which such claims should be preferred. After the death due to the accident, of the bread earner of the family, in many cases such claimants are virtually on the streets. Even in cases where the victims escapes death some of such victims are hospitalized for months if not for years. In the present case itself the applicant claims that he met with the accident on 4.12.1990 and he was being treated as an indoor patient till 27.9.1991. According to us, in its wisdom the Parliament, rightly thought that prescribing a period of limitation and restricting the power of Tribunal to entertain any claim petition beyond the period of twelve months from the date of the accident was harsh, inequitable and in many cases was likely to cause injustice to the claimants. The present case is a glaring example where the appellant has been deprived by the order of the High Court from claiming the compensation because of delay of only four days in preferring the claim petition.

7. In this background, now it has to be examined as to what is the effect of omission of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act. From the Amending Act it does not appear that the said sub-section (3) has been deleted retrospectively. But at the same time, there is nothing in the Amending Act to show that benefit of deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 is not to be extended to pending claim