AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP227 No. 125 of 2024 • Narayan Jaiswal S/o Nirmal Jaiswal Aged About 54 Years R/o Kharsia, Tehsil And District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner Versus

1. Yogesh Gabel S/o Ramesh Gabel Aged About 50 Years Caste - Gabel, Occupation - Engineer R/o Masaniyakala, Ps And Tehsil Shakti, Distt -

Shakti, Chhattisgarh.

2. Ajay Kumar Sen S/o Bhaiya Lal Aged About 37 Years Occupation -

Driver, Gram Anjore, Thana Suhagi, District - Rewa, M.P. Presently Address Harijan Mohalla, Thana Kharsia, Distt - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

(Driver)

---- Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For petitioner : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas.

Order on Board

19.02.2024

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 02.12.2023 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Tribunal, Shakti, Distt Janjgir Champa, C.G. whereby the learned Tribunal has registered the case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 without deciding the application of limitation filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the claimant.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has registered the case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by respondent No.1 who is the claimant claiming compensation for injuries sustained by him because of use of motor vehicle bearing Bus No. CG13A6076 carelessly and negligently driven by respondent No.1. He would further submit that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed illegality in registering the case on the ground that the application has been filed within 6 months from date of enforcement of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 on 01.04.2022. He would further submit that the Motor Vehicles Act has been amended on 09.08.2019 which came into force on 01.04.2022 and following amendment has been incorporated in Section 166 of the M.V. Act which reads as under:-

After sub-section (2) the following sub-section shall be inserted namely :-

“(3) No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the Accident.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the accident took place on 01.12.2015 and the application for compensation was filed on 18.07.2022, which has been filed after amendment in Motor Vehicle Act was made effective, as such, the order dated 02.12.2023 passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Tribunal deserves to be quashed as application is barred by limitation in view of amendment made in the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

3. Record of the case would show that the accident has taken place on

01.12.2015 and on that date there was no period of limitation provided in the Act as such, the pre-existing right of claiming compensation by the claimants continues to exist, must in its turn, necessarily imply that the earlier law which created the right to the claimant must exist to support the continuation of his right. As the earlier law continues to exist for the purpose of supporting the pre-existing right to the claimant, that law must govern even after the amended provision. It is also well settled position of law that an amending statute cannot be read in a manner so as to take away, alter, abrogate, impair or extinguish vested rights acquired under existing laws, or create a new obligation, impose a new duty or attach a new disability, in respect of incidents already taken place.

4. It is well settled position of law that there is a presumption that a statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation – nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis, i.e. “a new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past”. Once vested, the rights cannot be taken away or retrospectively altered.