SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Gau) 1328

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Robin Phukan, J.
CHANDAN PATOWARY — Appellant
Vs.
XXX — Respondent
CRP No. 170 of 2019
Decided On : 21-01-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S.S. Sharma.

The lack of notification by the Central Government regarding the enforcement of an amended provision of the MV Act influenced the court's decision and highlighted the importance of proper notification for the enforcement of legal provisions.

Headnote:

MV Act - Compensation Claim - Section 166, 140 - [166, 140] - The court discussed the amended MV Act, specifically Section 166, and its requirement for filing a compensation claim within 6 months from the date of the accident. The court highlighted the lack of notification by the Central Government regarding the enforcement of Section 53 of the Amendment Act 2019, which amended Section 166 of the MV Act. This lack of notification led the court to set aside the order dismissing the claim petition and restore it for further proceedings.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a claim petition for compensation under Section 166 and 140 of the MV Act due to accidental injuries. The petition was dismissed by the MACT, Barpeta, citing the amended MV Act's requirement to file the claim within 6 months from the accident date.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the lack of notification by the Central Government regarding the enforcement of Section 53 of the Amendment Act 2019 rendered the dismissal of the claim petition invalid.

Issues: Validity of the dismissal of the claim petition under the amended MV Act and the lack of notification regarding the enforcement of Section 53 of the Amendment Act 2019.

Ratio Decidendi: The lack of notification by the Central Government regarding the enforcement of Section 53 of the Amendment Act 2019, which amended Section 166 of the MV Act, influenced the court's decision to set aside the dismissal of the claim petition.

Final Decision: The court set aside the order dismissing the claim petition and restored it for further proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Robin Phukan, J.

1. In this civil revision petition, the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 03.10.2019, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Barpeta in MAC Case No. 156/2019, is challenged by the petitioner, Sri Chandan Patowary S/o Late Pabitra Patowary of Chenga, Subha under the district of Barpeta.

2. It is to be mentioned herein that vide the impugned order, the learned Member, MACT, Barpeta has dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 and 140 of the MV Act, 1988 being not maintainable in law.

3. The factual background leading to filing the present petition is briefly stated as under.

4. The petitioner as claimant has filed a petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the MV Act before the Member, MACT, Barpeta claiming compensation on account of accidental injuries suffered by him on 17.12.2018, but the learned Member, MACT, Barpeta, vide the impugned order dated 03.10.2019, dismissed the petition on the ground that amended MV Act came into force w.e.f. 01.09.2019, which contained a provision that no application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within 6(Six) months from the date of accident, and the present application being filed beyond six months is not maintainable. Then, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present civil revision petition.

5. Heard Mr. H. Buragoahin, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents.

6. Mr. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accident of this case took place on 17.12.2018 and the claimed petition has been filed on 28.08.2019. It is further submitted that though the Motor Vehicle Act has been amended and in view of the amendment of the Section 166 of the MV Act, the claimed petition has to be preferred within a period of 6(Six) months from the date of occurrence, yet the same has not been notified by the Central Government. Mr. Buragohain further submits that though the Central Government has notified in the Official Gazette, published on 30.08.2019, that Section 1 of the MV Act 2019 appoints the 1st day of September, 2019 as the date on which Section 1 of the said Act shall come into force, yet the Central Government has not notified the date from which the other Section relating to the date from which the said provision shall come into force. It is further submitted that Section 53 of the Amendment Act inserted a new Sub-Section i.e. Sub-Section 2 to Section 166 of the MV Act, yet it has not been notified by the Government in the Official Gazette from which the Section 53 of the MV (Amendment) Act will come into force and as such the case of the petitioner is governed by the earlier Act i.e. Act of 1988.

7. Mr. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred one order of the Coordinated Bench of this Court in CRP/172/2019 dated 03.03.2021, wherein this Court dealing with a similar questions of law has allowed the petition and the present case is squarely covered by the said order of this Court and therefore Mr. Buragohain contends to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order of the learned Member, MACT, Barpeta.

8. Having heared the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have carefully gone through the records and the documents placed on record and also the order dated 03.03.2021 passed in CRP/172/2019 passed by the Coordinated Bench of this Court, it is mentioned herein that in the aforesaid order, this Court held as follows:

    “6. The amending Act of 2019 was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Pt.-II, Section 1, No. 51 dated 9th August, 2019. Thereafter, in terms of Sub-Section (2) of Section 1 of the amending Act of 2019, the provision of Section 1 of the amending Act of 2019 had come into force on 01.09.2019 by virtue of Notification no. S.O.3147(E) dated 30th August, 2019. The provision of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was amended

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top