IMPORTANT POINT
The amendment to section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was not in effect at the time of the accident, allowing the claim petition to proceed.

JUDGMENT :

BUDI HABUNG, J.

1. Heard Mr. N.N. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Mrs. R.D. Mozumdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1.

2. By filing this appeal under section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, the appellant is challenging the order dated 07.11.2020, passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 291/2019. By this impugned order, the petition filed by the appellant was dismissed as barred by law of limitation.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.05.2019 at about 5.10 PM, while the appellant/claimant was speaking in front of the shop of Late Bhabesh Kalita, he was knocked down by the offending vehicle due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. The appellant filed MAC Case No. 291/2019 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati, seeking compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in the accident.

4. The respondents contested the case and filed written statements along with a petition seeking for dismissal of the claim petition on the ground that it is barred by limitation. However, by the impugned order dated 07.11.2020, the learned Tribunal dismissed the petition, holding that the accident occurred on 03.5.2011 at about 5.10 PM at Dorakahora, NH 31, under Changsari Police Station, but the claimant has filed the claim petition on 11.11.2019, which is after 6 months of the accident. And as per section 166 (3) of the M.V. Act, 1988 (as amended upto date), no application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident. In view of this provision, the Tribunal held that the claim petition is barred by limitation and dismissed the petition.

5. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal on the following grounds:

(i) the accident took place on 3.5.2019, when the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act had not yet been enacted and enforced.

(ii) the Motor Vehicle (amendment) Act, 2019, is prospective and not retrospective in nature.

In light of the fact above facts, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and quashed.

6. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon this Court’s order dated 3.3.2021, in the case of Ranju Begum and Ors. vs. Shahjahan Ali and Anr. in CRP/172/2019. In this case, the Court held that the provision of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which was amended by the amending Act, as contained in section 53 of the amending Act, 2019, had not yet been notified. Therefore, the petitioner could still prefer an application under section 140 and/or under section 163-A of the MV Act, as the case may be. Thus, the provisions of section 140, 163 A and 166 of the MV Act, as it stood before the amendment by the amending Act of 2019 (Act 32 of 2019), would continue to operate with full vigor until section 50 to 57 of the amending Act of 2019 are notified in the official gazette.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Sikkim High Court dated 17.4.2023, in MAC App. No. 02/2022 (Aita Maya Gurung and Others vs. Ratna Kumar Pradhan and Others), whereby the Hon’ble High Court while referring to the Notification dated 25.2.2022, issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, held that the amendment in section 166, which inserted sub-section (3), was to come into effect only from 01.04.2022.

8. In light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has not raised any serious objection. She fairly submitted that although section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, was amended in the year 2019, it was notified by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highway only on 25.2.2022. This notification stipulates that the section 50 to 57 and section 93 shall come into force on April 1, 2022. In light of this, she has also not raised serious objection to the prayer made by the learned c