Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.
Shailendra Tripathi and Another – Appellants
Versus
Dharmendra Yadav and Others – Respondents
First Appeal from Order No. 1563 of 2020
Decided On : 20-11-2020
Motor Vehicle Act, 2019 - Section 166 (3) - Amendment Act, 2019 - Section 1 (2) - Principal Act - Sections 140 to 144 - Claim petition - Annexing several medical documents and death certificate - Counsel for the appellants orally submitted that there is question of law involved in this appeal and, therefore, contended that the order of the Tribunal is against the settled principle of law - Rejected the claim petition of the claimants filed for claiming compensation for death of their son –
Finding of the Court:
, Alternative was also available to the learned Tribunal but in sheer haste of disposal of the matter, he lost sight of omnibus order of Apex court of extending the period of limitation - Implications which can be flagged, namely, limitation, which was not there, has been introduced - It appears that the Central Government with a purpose not decided the date for bringing in, has not brought the provisions of amended which relates to complete change to and, therefore, the amended Act has not been brought on the statute book is very clear - Scheme of the new regime would show that they have not been brought on the statute book by amending or repealing the earlier provisions - Copy of this order be circulated to all the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal so that this fallacy may not creep in the future proceedings
Result- Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The judgment discusses the status and notification of amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act, 2019, particularly Section 166(3), and its impact on condonation of delay and limitation for filing. (!) - It notes that Sections 50 to 57 of the Amendment Act are not notified and that Sections 140 to 144, 145 to 164, and related sections continue to operate under the Principal Act, allowing applications under 140, 163-A, or 166. (!) (!) - The order directs restoration and consideration of the claim petition under the provisions that were in force (166 read with 168 under the Principal Act) until the amended sections are notified. (!) - The tribunal's prior dismissal on the sole basis of Section 166(3) without considering interim or omnibus orders and fresh possibilities under existing sections is set aside. (!) (!) - The court emphasizes examining limitation in light of omnibus orders and pandemic-related extensions that were directed by higher courts, rather than applying a strict six-month period under the amended provision. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri. Ojha, learned counsel for the State as Amicus Curiae.
2. Amendment, if any, be carried out during the course of day.
3. This appeal is at the behest of claimants whose claim petition came to be dismissed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” holding that as the accident took place on 24.12.2019 and the petition was filed on 20.8.2010, hence, the claim petition was filed beyond six months as per the amended provisions of Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as amended in 2019 and, according to the learned Tribunal, the same provisions were/are in the statute book from 2019.
4. Brief skeletal facts are narrated as necessary to decide the question raised in this appeal. The claim petition was filed on 20th August, 2020 most probably after the courts started functioning and accepted filing in physical form. The reasons for delay were also assigned by the petitioners by annexing several medical documents and death certificate of mother of petitioner no. 1. The Tribunal mechanically held that amended Section 166 (3) of the Act subscribes a period of six months for filing claim petition and, therefore, a matter after that period cannot be entertained. Learned Tribunal, therefore, dismissed, the claim petition, which has given rise to this appeal.
5. Counsel for the appellants orally submitted that there is question of law involved in this appeal and, therefore, he has in paragraph 11 contended that the order of the Tribunal is against the settled principle of law.
6. The accident took place on 24.12.2019 as culled out from the order of Virjendra Kumar Singh, Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It appears that learned Tribunal has held that six months' time as contemplated had elapsed and, therefore, rejected the claim petition of the claimants filed for claiming compensation for death of their son.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Tribunal has taken a hyper-technical stand in rejecting the claim petition. It is submitted that the matter can be viewed from three angles. First aspect is that accident took place in the month of December, 2019, even if we hold that assumption made by the learned Tribunal that Section 166 (3) has been notified and is made applicable, six months' period would be over during the pandemic. The pandemic struck us in the month of March, 2020 and the Apex Court by an omnibus order extended the period of limitation. This aspect should have also been looked into by the learned Judge. Thus, period of limitation, therefore, was not over as per the omnibus direction of this Court as well as Apex Court. Reference can be made to various orders passed in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 564 of 2020, In Re vs. State of U.P. Suo Moto. The Division Bench of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Justice Siddhartha Varma passed therein several directions pertaining to enhancement of limitation as filing of matters was not permitted during the lock down and the order later on passed by the Division Bench on 10.7.2020 therein would also oblige, the learned Tribunal to consider the period. The orders have already been published on official website of he Court. It appears that in sheer haste, learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition.
8. Another aspect which is required to be appreciated is that even if we consider that the provisions of 166 (3) of the Motor Accident Act 2019 have been brought on statute book, learned Judge could have seen the matter from different angle that there is substitution of Section 163A by section164, where no period of limitation has been prescribed. He could have permitted the said alternative also. Thirdly, S
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
