Back
1996 Supreme(MP) 464
1996 JLJ 528
(SUPREME COURT)
N.P. Singh and Faizan Uddin, JJ.
Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya and others
Civil Appeal No. 7881 of 1996; against the order of the M.P. High Court;
Decided on 7.5.1996.
Headnote:(1) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 166 (3) --provision of limitation for filing claim petition -- was harsh -- rightly withdrawn.
The effect of the Amending Act is that w.e.f. 14.11.1994 there is no limitation for filing claims before the Tribunal in respect of any accident. It can be said that Parliament realised the grave injustice and injury which was being caused to the heirs and legal representatives of the victims who died in accidents by rejecting their claim petitions only on ground of limitation.
According to us, in its wisdom the Parliament, rightly thought that prescribing a period of limitation and restricting the power of Tribunal to entertain any claim petition beyond the period of twelve months from the date of the accident was harsh, inequitable and in many cases was likely to cause injustice to the claimants. [Para 6
(2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 166 (3) -- effect of deleting provision under -- now there is no limitation for filing of claim petition under -- date of accident is immaterial. [Para 7
(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss.166 (3) and 158 (6) -- deletion of S.166 (3) and 158 (6) -- deletion of S.166 (3) omitting limitation -- should be given full effect in the background of substitution of S. 158 (6) -- deletion of S.166 (3) -is applicable to all pending cases. [Para 7
(4) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S.166 (3) -- cases decided and reached to their finality -- claim petitions dismissed as barred by time -- cannot be revived after deletion of the provisions under -- benefit of deletion can be availed of by pending cases at any stage. [Para 8
¼1½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 166¼3½ & nkok vthZ Qkby djus dh ifjlhek dk mica/k & dBksj Fkk & Bhd gh gVk;k x;kA
la‘kks/ku vf/kfu;e dk çHkko ;g gS fd 14-11-1994 ls fdlh Hkh nq?kZVuk ds laca/k esa vf/kdj.k ds le{k nkok Qkby djus ds fy, dksbZ ifjlhek ugha gSA ;g dgk dgk tk ldrk gS fd laln us ml xaHkhj vU;k; rFkk {kfr dk vuqHko rFkk {kfr dk vuqHko fd;k tks nq?kZVuk esa ejus okys O;fDr;ksa ds okfjl rFkk fof/kd çfrfuf/k;ksa dks ek= ifjlhek ds vk/kkj ij mudh nkok vftZ;ksa dh [kkfjth }kjk dkfjr gks jgh FkhA
gekjs vuqlkj] laln us viuh çKk ls] Bhd gh lkspk fd ifjlhek dh vof/k fofgr djuk rFkk nq?kZVuk ds fnukad ls ckjg ekl ls ijs dksbZ Hkh nkok vthZ xzg.k djus dh vf/kdj.k dh ‘kfDr dks fuc±f/kr djuk dBksj] vlkfE;d Fkk rFkk cgqr&ls ekeyksa esa nkosnkjksa ds lkFk vU;k; dkfjr gksuk laHkkO; FkkA ¿iSjk 6
¼2½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 166¼3½ & ds v/khu mica/k ds gVk, tkus dk çHkko & vc mica/k ds v/khu nkok vthZ Qkby fd, tkus ds fy, dksbZ ifjlhek ugha gSa & nq?kZVuk dk fnukad rRoghu gSA ¿iSjk 7
¼3½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 166¼3½ rFkk 158 ¼6½ & /kkjk 166¼3½ rFkk 158 ¼6½ gVk;k tkuk & ifjlhek dk yksi dj ds /kkjk 166 ¼3½ gVk;k tkuk & /kkjk 158 ¼6½ ds çfrLFkkiu dh i`"BHkwfe esa iwjk çHkko fn;k tkuk pkfg, & /kkjk 166 ¼3½ dk gVk;k tkuk & lHkh yafcr ekeyksa ij ykxw gSA ¿iSjk 7
¼4½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 166¼3½ & ekeys fofuf‘pr rFkk vafrerk rd igq¡ps & le; oftZr gksus ds dkj.k nkok vftZ;k¡ [kkfjt & /kkjk ds mica/kksa ds gVk, tkus ds i‘pkr~ iqu#Tthfor ugha fd, tk ldrs & gVk, tkus dk Qk;nk fdlh Hkh çØe ij yafcr ekeyksa dks fey ldrk gSA ¿iSjk 8
N.P. Singh, J. -- 1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant while going on road on 4.12.1990 became victim of an accident, because of the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent'). The appellant suffered serious -injuries and was-admitted in Badwah Hospital, the same day. On 7.12.1990 he was shifted to M.Y. Hospital, Indore and was treated as an indoor patient till 27.9.1991. Because of the accident the appellant became permanently disabled, as his left leg above thigh and hip had been fractured. He also lost his services as a Driver. The claim petition for compensation was filed before the Additional Motor' Accident Claims Tribunal, Badwah (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') on 7.12.1991 along with an application for condonation of delay which was of four days only. The Tribunal by its order dated 18.11.1993 condoned the delay in filing the claim petition. The validity of the said order was challenged by the respondent before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The High Court by its order dated 31.7.1995 set aside the order of the Tribunal aforesaid condoning the delay saying that in view of sub-section (3) of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') the power of condonation by the Tribunal has been withdrawn and any claim must be filed within the period prescribed therein. The High Court further observed that by prescribing the fixed period for filing the petition for claim, the intention was that the 'sword of liability of paying compensation in respect of accident caused by motor vehicle should not be permitted to hover on the head of the person owning the said vehicle and person driving such vehicle.' It was also pointed out that the position was different under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in which sub-section (3) of section 11-A although prescribed a period of six months for filing an application for compensation from the date of the accident, but vested power in Tribunal to entertain such application even after the expiry of the said period of six months, if the Tribunal was satisfied that the claimant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time.
3. Sub-section (3) of section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provided:
"No application for such compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident:
Provided that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of six months if it is satisfied that the applicant was 'prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time."
4. The Act which repealed the earlier Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 came in force w.e.f. 1.7.1989. The new Act prescribed a period of limitation for filing the claim petition in sub-section (3) of section 166. Said sub-section provided:
"No application for such compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident.
Provided that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of six months but not later than twelve months, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time."
5. According to the High Court, as proviso to sub-section (3) of section 166 of the Act said that Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of six months 'but not later than twelve months', any application filed beyond the period of twelve months from the date of the accident cannot be entertained as no discretion had been left with the Tribunal to consider the circumstances because of which the application for claim could not be filed within the period of twelve months of the occurrence of the accident.
6. Before the scope of sub-section (3) of section 166 of the Act is examined, it may be pointed out that the aforesaid sub-section (3) of section 166 of the Ac
