The Motor Vehicles Act's amendment removing filing time limits for claims indicates that genuine cases should not be dismissed on procedural delays, reflecting Parliament's intent to support accident victims.

JUDGMENT :

R.K.PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’) is at the behest of the appellants assailing the impugned judgment passed in M.A.C. Case No.254 of 2021 (arising out of Jagatsinghpur P.S Case No.06 of 2010) by the learned District Judge-cum-1^st M.A.C.T, Jagatsinghpur in a proceeding under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, whereby, the application for compensation was dismissed on contest against respondent No.2 and ex parte vis-à-vis respondent No.1, namely, owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.OR-21A-6821 on the grounds inter alia that the same is not tenable in law and hence, liable to be interfered with and set aside followed by a direction to allow just compensation in their favour on account of death of the deceased.

2. The undisputed facts are as follows. As per the claim application filed by the appellants, the alleged occurrence took place on 2nd January, 2010 at about 6 pm when the deceased while was standing on the road side near the spot, at that time, the offending vehicle, a motor cycle bearing suddenly arrived at a very high speed driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him from back, as a result of which, he sustained grievous head injury and other injuries as well and was immediately shifted to the hospital at Jagatsinghpur, however, succumbed later while under treatment and in that connection, Jagatsinghpur P.S. Case No.06 of 2010 was registered for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC . It is pleaded by the appellants that the deceased was aged about 60 years, hale and hearty and was running a printing business with a monthly income of Rs.15,000/- contributed towards the family maintenance but due to the ill-fated accident, the family lost an earning member forever. It is further pleaded that the vehicle in question involved in the accident was validly insured with respondent No.2 and the rider of the motor cycle was possessed of a valid and effective DL at the time of the accident.

3. With the claim application filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, learned Tribunal received evidence from both the sides, whereas, respondent No.1 was set ex-parte and finally dismissed the same by the impugned judgment dated 12^th December, 2023 on the premise that it is barred by limitation in view of (3) as amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 which came into force w.e.f. 1st September, 2019 since the application for compensation was filed on 21^st December, 2021. Such conclusion of the learned Tribunal is challenged by the appellants with a demand for compensation payable by respondent No.2 since the vehicle stood insured with them.

4. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the claimants appellants and Mr. Das, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, namely, Insurance Company. None appears for respondent No.1.

5. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for appellants submits that learned Tribunal committed a serious wrong by holding that the claim application is barred by limitation prescribed in Section 166 (3) of the M.V. Act having been introduced w.e.f. 1^st September, 2019 and as such calculated the delay as 475 days. In order to explain the statutory position, Mr. Mishra, refers to the relevant provisions of the M.V. Act. It is submitted that a limitation was prescribed under Section 110 -A of the M.V. Act, 1939 which remained in force till 1^st July, 1989 and in 1988, the same was retained though providing the Claims Tribunal, the discretion to entertain applications after expiry of six month but not later than 12 months. it is further submitted by Mr. Mishra that in the amendment of 1994 to o