The amended provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has only prospective effect from 1st April, 2022, and the limitation period of six months applies after the introduction of the amendment. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the limitation period was also acknowledged by the court.

JUDGMENT :

AJIT KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 5.

2. By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has challenged the order dated 18th April, 2022 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the claim petition of the petitioner has been returned on the ground that it came to be filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation i.e. six months from the date of accident and hence as per Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended vide Act No. 32 of 2019 and made effective from 1st April, 2022, the claim petition was held not maintainable.

3. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is two fold:

(A) The Tribunal is not justified in returning the claim petition on the ground of delay in filing the claim petition because the amending Act was made effective only from 1st April, 2022 and even though the claim petition was filed on 12th April, 2022 but amendment incorporating period of limitation under the Motor Vehicles Act being only prospective in nature, application was maintainable. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Sathi and Others vs. Dileep I.S. and Others decided on 1st June, 2022 in OP (MAC) No. 51 of 2022, wherein this legal aspect of the matter has been dealt with extensively and it has been held that amended provision of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was having only prospective effect from 1st April, 2022 in terms of the accident occurring on that day or subsequently; and

(B) Since the accident had taken place on 12th October, 2020 when the whole State was badly hit by the Covid-19, therefore, a general order condoning the delay for instituting judicial proceedings or for that matter quasi judicial proceedings, the Supreme Court took a pragmatic view that period during which the States and the nation were hit by the pandemic Covid-19, such period should be exempted from the period of limitation, or in other words the period of limitation would stand extended for such a period. In this connection, petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court dated 10th January, 2022 passed in Misc. Application No. 21 of 2022 in a Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2022.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurer has sought to justify the order impugned for the reasons assigned therein.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and their arguments raised across the bar, I find that Accident Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim of petitioner solely on the ground that the accident had taken place on 12th October, 2020 and when the petition was presented before the Tribunal the amendment had already intervened which prescribed for six month limitation for moving application for claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. Applying the amended provision, the Tribunal has held that claim petition was not maintainable and accordingly returned the claim petition to the claimant-applicant.

6. The judgment of the Kerala High Court, as is claimed to be still holding the field, has dealt with the provisions and held that the amended provisions would have prospective effect only. Vide paragraph 10 of the judgment, it has been held thus:

“10. Since while introducing the Act of 2019 effective from 1.4.2022, Legislature did not cause any amendment in the repealing and savings clause specifying its applicability in respect of the accidents occurred prior to the introduction of the amendment, in view of the provisions of Section 6 and the observations of the Supreme Court in the judgment in State of Punjab and Others vs. Bhajan Kaur and Others (supra), I am of the view that the applicability of the Act i.e. introduction of the old provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 166, would have a prospective effect and the limitation period of six months would apply after introduction of the amendment i.e. post 1st A