Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, J
VIJAYAN – Appellant
Versus
MANOJ.K – Respondent
OP (MAC) 7/2023
Motor Vehicles - Compensation Claims - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 164, 166(3) - Section 164 allows claims without proving negligence, while Section 166(3) sets a six-month limit for applications.
Fact of the Case:
The original petition challenges the dismissal of claim petitions for compensation regarding an accident that occurred on 12.04.2022, arguing that the claims were improperly barred by limitation despite being filed under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Issues: Whether the limitation period under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act applies to claims filed under Section 164.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the non obstante clause in Section 164 supersedes the limitation rules of Section 166(3), allowing the claim under Section 164 to proceed.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside and the claim petition was directed to be registered and heard.
Key Points: - The court held that Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act allows compensation claims without proving negligence, and its non obstante clause overrides the limitation provisions of Section 166(3) (!) (!) - The question before the court was whether the six-month limitation in Section 166(3) applies to claims filed under Section 164, and the court answered in the affirmative to bypass such limitation for 164 claims (!) (!) - The impugned order dismissing two unnumbered claim petitions under Ext.P2 was set aside, and the petitions were directed to be registered and heard in accordance with law (!) (!) - The petitions concern a car accident on 12.04.2022 where several passengers died or were grievously hurt, filed under Section 164 of the Act (!) - The judgment discusses the non obstante clause of Section 164 and its interaction with limitation acts under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act (!) (!) - The court references the specific statutory provisions: Section 164(1)-(3) and Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (!) (!) - The matter involves two unnumbered OP(MV) petitions filed on 25.10.2022 and 12.04.2022 accident date (!) (!) - The original petition seeks compensation for death and grievous hurt arising from a motor vehicle accident, applying no-fault liability under Section 164 (!) (!) - The decision reverses the MACT, Wayanad Ext.P2 order and directs proceedings to be heard expeditiously (!)
JUDGMENT
Ext.P2 order dated 08.11.2022 of the MACT, Wayanad dismissing the two unnumbered claim petitions preferred for claiming compensation in respect of an accident occurred on 12.04.2022, being barred by the limitation, is under challenge in this original petition. It is contended that in the accident aforementioned, three passengers travelling in the car bearing registration No.KL-76-9140 died except a minor child and guardian, the petitioners herein. Petitions were filed under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and not under Section 166 . Provisions of (3) Act for determining the limitation ought not come into play, otherwise also, the provisions of the limitation cannot be taken away in view of the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act.
2. Issue notice before admission. Learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.
4. It would be appropriate to reproduce Section 164 and sub section 3 of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .
164. Payment of compensation in case of death or grievous hurt, etc.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or grievous hurt due to any accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, a compensation, of a sum of five lakh rupees in case of death or of two and a half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.
(2) In any claim for compensation under sub- section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or grievous hurt in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or of the vehicle concerned or of any other person.
(3) Where, in respect of death or grievous hurt due to an accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation has been paid under any other law for the time being in force, such amount of compensation shall be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this section. 166. Application for compensation.- (1)xxxxxxx (2)xxxxxxx (3)No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident.
5. Prior to the amendment clause of the Motor Vehicles Act Section 163A was in vouge for filing the claim petition on the basis of no fault liability prescribed in the structure formula. Section 164 is pari materia to the aforementioned provision. The Act opens with the non obstante clause and therefore the provisions of sub section 3 of Section 166 would not have come into the way of the petitioners for the purpose of prosecuting the O.P.(MV) preferred on 25.10.2022. The order impugned Ext.P2 is preposterous, opaque and illegal, accordingly, set aside.
6. Unnumbered O.P.(MV) (C.F.7135/2022) arising from Ext.P1 claim petition on the file of the MACT, Wayanad is directed to be registered and tried in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
Original petition stands disposed off.
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
