Delays in filing compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act must be justified; unreasonable delays render claims stale and unentertainable.

JUDGMENT :

These appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (the Act) by the second respondent/insurer and the claim petitioners 1, 3 and 4 respectively in O.P.(MV) No.2507/2014 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakualm, (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the Award dated 11/02/2019. In these appeals, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition.

2. The claim petitioners are the wife, mother and brother of the deceased. According to the claim petitioners, on 12/08/2006 at about 09:15 p.m., while the deceased was riding motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-7/AL-6793 through Chullikkal-Thoppumpady road, motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-7/BB-7971 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner collided with the bike of the deceased, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries, to which he succumbed. A sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- was claimed by the claim petitioners as compensation under various heads.

3. The first respondent/owner-cum-rider remained ex parte.

4. The second respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the first respondent/rider of the offending vehicle. It was also contended that the petition was not maintainable as the claim was filed with a delay of eight years for which no reasons has been furnished.

5. Before the Tribunal, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A26 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners.No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent/rider of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.1,11,21,204/- together with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the second respondent/insurer and the claim petitioners have come up in appeal.

7. The only point that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

8. Heard both sides.

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the second respondent/insurer relying on the dictum in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Jojo , 2019 (4) KLT 127 that the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding compensation, though the claim was a stale one. The accident took place on 12/08/2006. But the claim petition was filed in the year 2014 only, that is, after a period of 8 years, for which no reason(s) has been given. Hence, the Tribunal ought not to have entertained the claim petition or awarded compensation. Per contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioners that in the absence of any time limit prescribed under the Act, a claim petition cannot be rejected on the ground that it is belated. It is also pointed out that there is no dispute regarding the insurance coverage or regarding the occurrence. There has been no unjust enrichment for the claim petitioners as the Tribunal has awarded interest only from the date of the claim petition. The claim petitioners can also not be accused of adopting any delaying tactics. The first claim petitioner, the wife of the deceased, was only 25 years old when she lost her husband. The third claim petitioner, her brother-in-law, was quite young at that time and also a dependent of the deceas