The absence of a limitation period at the time of the accident justified the delay in filing the claim, maintaining that the state is vicariously liable for accidents caused by its employees.

JUDGEMENT& ORDER :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1) Heard Ms. Caroline K. Lungawipuii, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. L. H. Lianhrima, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli, learned counsel for the respondent.

2) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the State appellants, impugning the judgment and award dated 14.02.2025, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl, in MACT Case No. 38/2022, whereby, the appellants were directed to pay acompensation amount of Rs. 23,30,000/- along with the interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

3) The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that the present respondent, as claimant, had filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl, claiming compensation for death of her husband Late. K.Lalengmawia, who died in a vehicular accident, on 18.11.2011, at about 6:30 PM, involving a Mizoram State Transport Bus Bearing Registration No. MZ-01-D-2250 driven by one Shri K. Lallawmsanga.

4) The present appellant contested the claim by filing a written statement, wherein, amongst the general defense, which are usually taken by the opposite parties in claims cases, a plea was also raised that the claim is barred by the law of limitation.

5) Upon pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl framed following issued in the aforesaid claim case-

i. Whether the present claim application is maintainable in its present form and style?

ii. Whether there was fault on the part of the driver or owner of the accident vehicle?

iii. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation, if so, who is liable to pay and to what extent?

6) The claimant examined 5 (five) witnesses, including herself, to prove her case, whereas, the present appellants as opposite partieshad examined 2 (two) witnesses, namely, the driver of the ill-fated vehicle, Shri. K. Lallawmsanga as opposite party witness No. 1, and the conductor of the ill-fated vehicle namely, Shri. Lalhmangaiha, as opposite party witness No. 2. However, after conclusion of the enquiry, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl, by the judgment and award, which has been impugned in this appeal, directed the present appellant to pay a compensation of Rs. 23,30,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Three Lakh Thirty Thousand) along with an interest @ 7 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.

7) Ms. Caroline K. Lungawipuii, learned counsel for the appellants, hassubmitted that the accident in which the husband of the respondent died, occurred on 18.11.2011, whereas, the respondent/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, after a lapse of more than ten years from the date of the said accident, i.e., on 11.10.2022, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl. She further submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had miserably failed to apply its judicial mind by entertaining such a stale claim.

8) She submits that though Section 166 (3) of th