IMPORTANT POINT
Claims under the Motor Vehicles Act must be filed within a reasonable time; unreasonable delays can lead to claims being deemed stale.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.N. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of the sole Respondent in spite of service of notice.

2. This Court vide an order dated 21.05.2024 taking into account the issue involved had requested Mr. S. Sahu, the learned counsel as to whether he would be inclined to assist this Court more so when the Respondent had not put in her appearance, Mr. S. Sahu, the learned counsel had readily agreed and accordingly, on 21.05.2024, Mr. S. Sahu was duly appointed as the Amicus Curiae in the instant proceedings.

3. In the instant proceedings, the challenge made is to an order dated 21.03.2023 passed in MAC Case No. 339/2021 wherein an application filed by the Petitioner herein who is the Respondent in the said proceedings for rejection of the claim on the ground of unreasonable delay was rejected.

4. For appreciating the dispute involved, it is relevant to take note of that on 17.09.2003, the Respondent herein while travelling from Dudhnoi to Agia as a passenger suffered grievous injuries. Thereupon, on 07.09.2021 i.e. almost after 18 years, the claim petition was filed seeking a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- by the Respondent herein. The Petitioner Company upon receipt of the notice, appeared and submitted a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the said claim proceedings on the ground that the said claim proceedings was filed after 18 years 4 months. It is not known as to whether the Respondent herein filed any objection to the said petition raising preliminary objections or as to whether the learned Tribunal asked the claimant/respondent herein to file any affidavit explaining the delay in approaching the Claims Tribunal after a period of 18 years.

5. Be that as it may, vide an order dated 21.03.2023, the learned Tribunal rejected the application for dismissal of the claim petition on the ground of delay and being aggrieved, the present proceedings has been filed.

6. Mr. A.N. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that although Section 166(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) which earlier mandated filing of the claim proceedings within a period of 6 months was deleted vide the Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 1994 w.e.f 14.11.1994 (for short “the Amending Act, 1994”) but the learned Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration that the dispute in question was a stale dispute. The learned counsel submitted that approaching the learned Tribunal after such an unexplained delay, makes it very difficult for the Petitioner Company to have a proper defence inasmuch as there is no records available as well as witnesses for the Petitioner company to take a reasonable defence which is also a facet of the principles of natural justice and Article 21 of the Constitution. He referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Purohit and Company Vs. Khatoonbee and Another, (2017) 4 SCC 783 wherein the Supreme Court had rejected the claim proceedings on the ground of being stale and accordingly to be treated as a dead claim. He submitted that in that case, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case wherein the delay was for 28 years.

7. Per contra, Mr. S. Sahu, the learned Amicus Curiae submitted that in terms with the Amending Act of 1994, three significant legislative changes were incorporated inasmuch as Section 158(a) was substituted, Section 166(3) was deleted and Section 166(4) was substituted. The learned Amicus Curiae therefore submitted that by virtue of substitution of Section 158(6) of the Act of 1988, a statutory obligation was cast upon the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station to submit the report before the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the insurer in question. He therefore submitted that upon submission of the report by the concerned Police Officer, the Tribunal was required to treat the same as a claim proceedings in terms with the substituted