The non-notification of amendment provisions means prior statutes govern claim timelines, allowing the claim despite a dismissal for being time-barred.

1. Challenge to this appeal is the award dated 19.2.2020 passed in unregistered claim case whereby learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh (for short 'the Tribunal') has dismissed the claim holding it to be barred by time. The parties to this appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the Tribunal.

2. The facts which are essential to be stated for adjudication of this appeal are that on 23.4.2019 at about 7.30 p.m., the claimant was dashed vehemently by offending vehicle 'Bolero' bearing registration No. CG 08 - AK 2333 owned by Ritesh Kumar Vaishnav and insured with Iffco - Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. when he was returning to his village Amlidihkhurd from Khairagarh. The alleged accident occurred owing to rash and negligent driving of its driver Shailendra Verma, as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries leading to the filing of the claim petition, instituted on 17.2.2020 under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Principal Act').

3. The aforesaid claim was dismissed by the Tribunal holding it to be barred by time as it was instituted beyond the prescribed period of six months from the date of occurrence of the accident as provided under sub-section (3) of S.166 of the Principal Act, which was inserted by virtue of S.53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act').

4. Mr. Hemant Kesarwani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - claimant, submits that since the accident had taken place on 23.4.2019, i.e., prior to the Amendment Act when the relevant provisions of the Principal Act were in force, where no time period was prescribed, the proceeding as initiated before the Tribunal, therefore, must have been governed by the provisions made in the said Principal Act and the claim could not have been held to be barred by time by taking recourse to the said provisions as inserted by the said Amendment Act. According to him, although the said Amendment Act has come into force w.e.f. 1.9.2019, but the provisions of S.53 of it proposing to amend the said provision in S.166 of the Principal Act were not notified by the Central Government as required under sub-section (2) of S.1 of the said Amendment Act, therefore, application for condonation of delay is neither required nor the claim could have been dismissed on the point of limitation. The learned Tribunal has, therefore, committed a serious illegality in dismissing the claim petition by holding it to be barred by time.

5. No one appears on behalf of the respondents despite service of notice of this appeal.

6. In view of the facts involved herein, the question which falls for consideration is as under:
Whether the claim petition could be held to be barred by time under sub-section (3) of S.166 of the Principal Act as inserted by way of S.53 of the Amendment Act?

7. Before adverting to the aforesaid question, it is necessary to trace the legislative development with regard to the matter of prescription of the period of limitation for filing the claim petition for compensation for death or injury arising out of the use of the motor vehicle.

8. Initially, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was in force, which contained the following provisions with regard to the period of limitation under S.110 - A and the relevant portion of which is extracted as under:
“S.110 - A. Application for compensation. -
(1)  xxxx xxxx xxxx
(2)  xxxx xxxx xxxx
(3) No application for 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 af