Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
J.N.Sarma, J.
Phuleswari Barman -Appellant
Versus
New India Assurance Company Ltd.and Ors. -Respondent
Misc.Appeal (First) No. 58 of 1991
Decided On : 16-12-1996
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 166(3) - LIMITATION - AMENDMENT - CLAIM PETITION - CONDONATION OF DELAY - RES JUDICATA - ORDER 2 RULE 2 CPC - ORDER 9 RULE 4 CPC - SUMMARY: The court held that the amendment to section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which removed the one-year limitation period for filing claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, applies retrospectively and benefits pending claim petitions. The court also held that the dismissal of a claim petition for default does not bar a subsequent claim petition under the principles of res judicata or Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. Order 9 Rule 4 CPC, which allows a party to bring a fresh claim or apply to restore an earlier claim petition dismissed for default, applies to claim petitions under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1990.
Fact of the Case:
A claim petition for the death of Basiram Barman in an accident on 2.12.81 was filed before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal at Dhubri by his wife, Phuleswari Barman. The petition was dismissed for default on 17.8.82. A subsequent claim petition was filed on 27.3.89 before the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Goalpara, along with an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal rejected the application, holding it to be barred by limitation and res judicata.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the amendment to section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which removed the one-year limitation period for filing claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, applies retrospectively and benefits pending claim petitions. The court also held that the dismissal of a claim petition for default does not bar a subsequent claim petition under the principles of res judicata or Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. Order 9 Rule 4 CPC, which allows a party to bring a fresh claim or apply to restore an earlier claim petition dismissed for default, applies to claim petitions under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1990.
Issues: 1. Whether the amendment to section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which removed the one-year limitation period for filing claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, applies retrospectively to pending claim petitions. 2. Whether the dismissal of a claim petition for default bars a subsequent claim petition under the principles of res judicata or Order 2 Rule 2 CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The amendment to section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which removed the one-year limitation period for filing claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, applies retrospectively to pending claim petitions. This is because the amendment does not state that it is not to be applied retrospectively, and because Parliament's intention in amending the section was to remove the harsh and inequitable limitation period that was causing injustice to claimants. 2. The dismissal of a claim petition for default does not bar a subsequent claim petition under the principles of res judicata or Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. This is because res judicata only applies to matters that have been decided on merit, and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC does not apply to claim petitions. Order 9 Rule 4 CPC, which allows a party to bring a fresh claim or apply to restore an earlier claim petition dismissed for default, applies to claim petitions under the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1990.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and remanded MAC Case No.71 of 1989 to the Tribunal to be decided in accordance with law.
2. I have heard Mr. DC Mahanta learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. J. Singh learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1 The New Indian Assurance Company. None appears for other respondents. This question regarding limitation has been clinched now by a Single Judge decision of this Court as well as by the recent decision of the Apex Court in (1996) 4 SCC 652, Dhannalal vs. DP Vijayvargiya & others wherein it was pointed out by the Apex Court that sub-section (3) of section 166 of the Act has been amended by section 53 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Amendment) Act, 1994 which came into force with effect from 14:11.94. The Supreme Court further pointed out that the effect of the Amending Act is that it laid down that from 14.11.94 there is no limitation for filing claims before the Tribunal in respect of any accident. It can be said that Parliament realised the grave injustice and injury Which was being caused to the heirs and legal representatives of the victim who died in the accident rejecting their claim petition only on the 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 escape death some of the victims are hospitalised for months or for years. Parliament rightly thought that prescribing a period of limitation and restricting the power of the Tribunal to entertain any claim petition beyond the period of twelve months from die date of the accident was harsh, inequitable and in many cases was likely to cause injustice to the claimant. From the Amending Act it does not appeal 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 the benefit of deletion of sub-section (3) of section 166 is not to be extended to the pending claim petitions where the plea of limitation has beer raised. When sub-section (3) of section 166 has been omitted the Tribunal has to entertain a claim petition without taking note of the date on which such accident taken place. The claim petition cannot be thrown out on the ground that, such claim petition was barred by time when sub-section (3) of section 166 was in force. So the Supreme Court pointed out that no such provisions has been deleted during the pendency of the petition before the Tribunal or the High Court or the Supreme Court, the claimant is entitled to the benefit of the amended provisions. Accordingly I hold that in this particular case also the claimant shall be entitled to the benefit of the amended provisions and it cannot be said that the claim which was made in the year 1989 shall be deemed to be barred by limitation, so the first ground on whi
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
