Back
1994 Supreme(All) 478
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. C. MOHAPATRA, A. RAHIM
KUMARI POONAM - Appellant
Versus
PHOOL CHAND - Respondents
F. A. F. O. 196 Of 1992
Decided On : 08/01/1994
CHANDRA RAI, FAUJDAR RAI
Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is a special provision creating a bar to entertain any claim petition. General provision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act will not prevail over the special provision.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 - SECTION 166(3) - LIMITATION - CLAIM PETITION - DISMISSAL - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY - MINOR CLAIMANT - DELAY - CONDONATION - SPECIAL PROVISION - GENERAL PROVISION - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - SECTION 5 - APPLICABILITY - EQUITY - SYMPATHY - NO ROLE - REMEDY - SUIT AGAINST BROTHER OF DECEASED AND ADVOCATE'S CLERK - CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Claimants, widow and minor daughter of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, for compensation arising out of an accident caused by a Jeep. The accident occurred on 14-3-1985, when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was in force. The claim application was filed on 29-11-1989 after the Act came into force repealing the 1939 Act. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition as barred by limitation under Section 166(3) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Section 166(3) of the Act is a special provision creating a bar to entertain any claim petition. General provision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act will not prevail over the special provision. When Parliament having knowledge, of Section 5 of Limitation Act created a bar to the entertainment of a claim petition by the Tribunal, equity or sympathy will have no role to play.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 applies to a claim petition filed after the Act came into force, where the accident occurred before the Act came into force? 2. Whether the period of limitation under Section 166(3) of the Act can be extended in case of a minor claimant? 3. Whether the delay in filing the claim petition can be condoned in the interest of justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is a special provision creating a bar to entertain any claim petition. General provision under Section 5 of the Limitation Act will not prevail over the special provision. 2. The period of limitation under Section 166(3) of the Act cannot be extended in case of a minor claimant. 3. The delay in filing the claim petition cannot be condoned in the interest of justice, as Section 166(3) of the Act is a special provision creating a bar to entertain any claim petition.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition as barred by limitation.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against order dismissing the claim petition as barred by limitation under Section 166 (3) of the Act.
( 2 ) CLAIMANTS are widow and minor daughter of the deceased, who was victim of an accident caused by a Jeep U. H. X. 7449, when the appeal was listed for admission, we heard learned counsel for appellants and find that conclusion of tribunal is unassailable. ,
( 3 ) ACCIDENT was on 14-3-1985 when the Motor Vehicles 3ct, 1939 was in force. Claim application was filed on 29-11-1989 after the Act came into force repealing the 1939 Act. Tribunal has accepted objection of the insurer that appeal is not maintainable as being barred by limitation as provided under Section 166 (3) of the Act.
( 4 ) SINCE interpretation of Section 166 (3) of the Act is involved in this appeal entire section 166 is extracted which read as follows:-166. Application for Compensation - (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made - (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not joined so, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made to the claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, and shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed : provided that where any claim for compensation under Section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant. (3) No application for such compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months but no later than twelve months, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. (4) Where a police officer has filed a copy of the report regarding an accident to a claims Tribunal under this Act, the claims Tribunal may, if it thinks necessary so to do, treat the report as if it were an application for compensation under this Act. "
( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for appellants submitted: (I) Cause of action having arisen under the 1939 Act provision under Section 166 (3) of the Act would not be attracted. (ii) Even if Section 166 (3) of the Act applies, it has to be read with provision of the Limitation Act and one of the claimants being minor, claim application would not be barred under Section 166 (3) of the Act as right to claim subsists till the minor attains majority; and (iii) On the facts and circumstances, benevolent provision of the Act shall be interpreted liberally to give relief to the destitutes that rejecting the application on the technical ground of limitation provided under Section 166 (3) of the Act.
( 6 ) APPROACHING forum for relief is a right provided the forum is available. Period within which an aggrieved persons would seek the remedy is not a right. It is procedural Accordingly, first contention of learned counsel has no merit.
( 7 ) IT is true that a minor can file a suit on attaining majority within the period of limitation provided. In 1981 Acc CJ 529: (AIR 1982 All 34) (All) (Vijay Gopal v. Nanak), this principle was made applicable to a claim petition under 1939 Act which had no provision similar to Section 166 (3) of the Act. Besides wh
