Back
2023 Supreme(Sikk) 8
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.
Aita Maya Gurung - Appellant
Versus
Ratna Kumar Pradhan - Respondent
MAC App. No. 2 of 2022
Decided On : 17-04-2023
Pritima Sunam, Advocate, Tashi Doma Sherpa, Advocate, Pema Dechen Bhutia, Advocate, A.K.Upadhyaya, Advocate, Rachhitta Rai, Advocate, Sunil Baraily, Advocate
Amendments to compensation laws are not retroactive unless expressly stated, affecting the applicability of filing deadlines for claims.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Compensation claim - Claimants sought Rs.29,34,800 for death of a relative in an accident - Underlying issues included validation of income, vehicle/document legality, and claim entitlement. (Paras 1-2)
(B) Delay in claim filing - Claim was dismissed as filed 6 years post-accident, deemed barred by limitation under the amended Section 166(3) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The amendment became effective only from April 1, 2022. (Paras 3-12)
(C) Award Calculation - Court recalculated compensation amounting to Rs.29,19,551, accounting for future prospects and additional losses. (Paras 15-16)
(D) Delay Explanation - The amendment only enforced post-accident date, hence prior rule applies, the lower court's finding on limitation was erroneous. (Paras 12-13) (E) Compensation Distribution - Insurance company responsible for payout; 9% interest from filing date until realization. (Paras 17-18)
Findings of Court:
The Learned Claims Tribunal's conclusions regarding limitation were found to be erroneous. No contest on other income matters led to an adjustment of compensation under various heads.
Issues: Main issues pertained to limitation based on the unreleased amendment and compensation calculations on death of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: Courts rule amendments to compensation laws do not apply retrospectively unless expressly stated, thus affecting claim filing timelines.
Result: Appeal allowed and compensation recalculated.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basics of the case and compensation claim. (Para 1) |
| 2. issues settled and tribunal's findings. (Para 2 , 6) |
| 3. appellants' arguments on limitation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 4. discussion on retrospective application of the amendment. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. compensation calculation principles. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. final decision on compensation payout. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT
MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI, J. - The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, West Sikkim, at Gyalshing (for short, "Learned Claims Tribunal"), settled three issues for determination in MACT Case No.06 of 2019 (Smt. Aita Maya Gurung and Others vs. Shri Ratna Kumar Pradhan and Others), in a Claim Petition filed by the Appellants, seeking compensation of Rs.29, 34, 800.00 (Rupees twenty nine lakhs, thirty four thousand and eighty) only, on account of the death of Ratna Man Gurung, husband of Appellants No.1 and 2 and father of Appellants No.3 and 4;
The issues settled for determination were;
(i) Whether the deceased was earning a monthly salary of Rs.23, 975.00 at the time of the accident and whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation as claimed in the petition (Onus on claimants).
(ii) Whether the documents of the vehicle as well as the driver were valid and effective at the time of accident (Onus on claimants and opposite parties).
(iii) Whether the claimants are entitled to relief(s).
2. While deciding issue no.1, the Learned Claims Tribunal concluded that the deceased was earning Rs.23, 975.00 (Rupees twenty three thousand, nine hundred and seventy five) only, at the time of accident. However, with regard to the second part of the issue, as to whether the Claimants are entitled to the compensation claimed, it was observed that the matter being similar to issue no.3, would be dealt along with that issue.
(i) Issue no.2 was decided in favour of the Claimants.
While deciding issue no.3, the Learned Claims Tribunal opined that the claim petition was filed belatedly on 30/8/2019 under Sec. 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter, "M. V. Act, 1988"), read with Rule 247 of the Sikkim MOTOR VEHICLES RULES , 1991, when the accident had occurred on 17/9/2010, with no explanation furnished by the Claimants for the delay. It was further observed that the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, came into force with effect from 9/8/2019, vide which sub-sec. (3) was inserted in Sec. 166 of the M. V. Act, 1988, which lays down that no application for compensation shall be entertained, unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident. That, the claim petition was filed "6 years 9 months and 7 days" after the accident and the petition being thus barred by limitation, was consequently dismissed and the Claimants denied compensation.
3. Learned Counsel for the Appellants-Claimants assails only this finding of the Learned Claims Tribunal, on grounds that the accident took place on 17/9/2010, whereas the amendment was inserted on 9/8/2019 and vide the Notification dated 25-02- 2022 of the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, the 1st day of April, 2022, was the appointed date by the Central Government on which the amendment, viz., Sec. 166(3) of the M. V. Act, 1988, would come into force. That, as the amendment was not enforced on the date of accident or for that matter even on the date of Judgment, the findings of the Learned Claims Tribunal on the issue of limitation is erroneous and hence, be set aside.
4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.1 and 2 had no objection to the arguments advanced and conceded that the amendment to Sec. 166 of the M. V. Act, 1988, by insertion of sub-sec. (3) came into force only on 1/4/2022.
5. Respondent No.3 herein, who was the Opposite Party No.3 (Insurance Company), before the Learned Claims Tribunal was proceeded ex parte vide Order dtd. 25/3/2022 on their nonappearance before the Learned Claims Tribunal. The said Order thus obtained finality as it was not assailed at a
