The prospective nature of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act rendered claims not maintainable for accidents that occurred prior to its introduction.

ANITA CHAUDHRY, J.

1. This is the claimants' appeal against the order of dismissal dated 12.03.1998, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda.

2. A petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act was filed by the legal heirs of Sukhdev Singh. He died in an accident which occurred on 07.04.1994. It was filed on 03.11.1995 and subsequently amended in 1997. The deceased was 35 years old and had a monthly income of Rs. 2,000/-. A DDR was registered with respect to this accident on 08.04.1994.

3. Sukhdev Singh was returning from Ambala. His vehicle developed a snag and went out of order and struck against the tree as a result Sukhdev suffered injuries on his vital organs and died on the spot.

4. A number of objections were raised by the owner and the insurance company. It was pleaded that no accident had taken place and the Court had no territorial jurisdiction. Plea of limitation was taken. It was pleaded that a claim petition could be filed within six months of the accident and no application seeking condonation had been filed. It was pleaded that the claim could have been filed under the Women Compensation Act and that too if it was permissible under that Act. It was also pleaded that the driver was not having a valid licence or a road permit and the deceased himself had violated the terms of the policy. The following issues were framed:-

1. Whether claimants are legal heirs of Sukhdev Singh deceased? OPA

2. Whether Sukhdev Singh died on account of accident involving vehicle No. PAW-3882 in the revenue limits of Bhawanigarh Kanchian on 07.04.1994? OPA

3. Whether claimants are entitled to recover the amount of compensation, how much and from whom? OPA

4. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present application? OPA

5. Whether the application is maintainable in the present form in this Court? OPA

6. Whether the claim is preferred within time? OPA

7. Whether Sukhdev Singh did not have a valid driving licence at the time of accident took place? OPR-2

8. Whether respondent was not holding a valid registration certificate, fitness certificate at the time of accident? OPR-2

9. Relief.

5. The Tribunal gave a finding only on issue nos. 4 to 6 holding that the claim was barred by limitation. It was held that the deceased was employed with Om Parkash-respondent no. 1 and the claim could be filed only under the Workmen Compensation Act. The claim petition was rejected on the ground of limitation and maintainability, however, permitting the claimants to approach the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act.

6. The submission on behalf of the appellants is that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 limitation had been prescribed but after the deletion of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act there was no limitation and the petition could not have been dismissed on the ground on delay. Reliance was placed upon Dhannalal vs. D.P. Vijayvargiya, 1996 (3) RCR (Civil) 76. It was urged that the Tribunal has rejected the petition on the ground of maintainability but workmen Compensation Act was not applicable and it is the choice of the claimants and they can approach under either of the Act. It was urged that the petition be remanded or a report from the Tribunal be called.

7. The submission on the other hand was that the law which was prevailing on the date of the accident has to apply and the provisions under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 were not in the statute book and it is prospective in nature and the claim was not maintainable under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as that provision did not exist and though this aspect has not been dealt with but it is clear that the claim will not lie and therefore, the question of remand does not arise. It was urged that the Full Bench of Karnataka High Court had dealt with the issue in Guruanna Vadi and Another vs. The General Manager, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Another, 2001 ACJ 1528 and the question which was