JUDGMENT :

This Original Petition is filed against the order dated 11.11.2022, whereby the claim petition preferred by the petitioner/claimant, who sustained injuries in an accident occurred on 10.05.2022, has been rejected being barred by limitation.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner while standing in front of “Choice Hyper Market”, was hit by a car bearing Regn.No.KL-51/K-8212 driven by the first respondent and insured by the third respondent. The claim petition was filed on 10.11.2022 with e-filing No.C-202200074 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which was returned by holding it to be barred by limitation in view of the Government notification dated 25.02.2022 read with Section 53 in Gazette No.51 dated 09.08.2019, whereby the amendment under the Motor Vehicles Act, 2019 came into effect with effect from 01.04.2022 and incorporated in sub-section (3) of Section 166.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the MACT ought not to have returned the petition on this ground and ought to have called the other side and framed the issues to adjudicate whether the claim petition is barred by law of limitation or not, for, the calculation of the period of six months has to be from the date of the accident and not by counting each day in a month. In support of the aforementioned contention, relied upon paragraph No.8 of the judgment in Bibi Salma Khatoon v. State of Bihar (2001 KHC 1617), whereby after noticing the provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1977, the period of limitation has been calculated by taking note of the meaning of the word 'month' by excluding the date from which the limitation is stated to have commenced. Since the claim petition was filed on 10.11.2022, which was on the last date of six months and excluding one day, it could have been one day short of six months. Paragraph 8 of the above judgment reads as under :

“8. Here we are concerned with compliance of requirement of making application within the prescribed period of three months. The question arises, what is meant by the word 'month'. Subsection (34) of Section 4 of the Bihar and Orissa General Clauses Act, 1917 defines the word 'month' to mean a month reckoned according to the British Calendar. This means Gregorian Calendar – January, February, etc. Mr.Jha has drawn our attention to Section 11 of the said Act of 1917 to point out that when word 'from' is used the first in the series of days or any other period of time has to be excluded and when the word 'to' is used the last in a series of days of any other period of time has to be included but in this case the word 'of' is used so that section will not apply. A perusal of Section 11 shows it is an aid for drafting a provision rather than for interpreting the provision of the Act. Be that as it may, since the Act does not expressly exclude Section 4 to 14 of the Limitation Act they apply to application under Section 16(3) of the Act. Therefore, the date from which the limitation commences has to be excluded in computing the period of limitation of three months. In Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Para 211 method of computation of month is given as follows :

“Para 21: Calendar month running from arbitrary date – when the period prescribed is a calendar month running from any arbitrary date the period expires upon the day in the succeeding month corresponding to the date upon which the period starts, save that, if the period starts at the end of a calendar month which contains more days than the next succeeding month, the period expires at the end of that succeeding month. If a period of one calendar month includes the last day of February there must be 29 or 28 days, according as the year is or is not a leap year.” Thus computed the application filed appellant on April 30, 1988 is within limitation – a period of three months of the date of the registered sale deed dated January 30, 1988. In view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the order u