Claims under the Motor Vehicles Act for accidents occurring before the introduction of a limitation period can still be valid if the claim is filed with sufficient justification for delay.

JUDGMENT

The appeal is preferred by the 3rd respondent Insurance Company against the award in O.P(MV) No.635 of 2019 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta. The parties are referred to as per their status in the claim petition.

2. Petitioners are the elder brothers of deceased Pramod, who died in a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 21.05.2007. According to the petitioners, the deceased, while travelling in a KSRTC bus, sustained serious injuries when a lorry driven by the 1st respondent hit against the bus. Pramod succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital. It is stated that two years after the death of the deceased, the mother died on 26.05.2009 on account of mental depression. Ten years after the death of the mother and 12 years after the date of the accident, the petitioners preferred the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act [for brevity, ‘the MV Act’] as the legal heirs of their late mother, claiming compensation for the death of Pramod. The petitioners produced Exts.A1 to A9 documents in support of their claim. Ext.A1 is the copy of the First Information Report, Ext.A2 series are the copies of the AMVI report, Ext.A3 is the copy of charge sheet and Ext.A4 is the copy of the postmortem report of the deceased.

3. The Insurance Company entered appearance and resisted the application contending that the accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC bus, in which the deceased was travelling. It was also contended that the amount of compensation claimed under various heads is exorbitant and that the claim is barred by limitation.

4. The Tribunal found that the accident happened due to the negligence of the 1st respondent, the driver of the lorry and the deceased Pramod died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. It was also found that the petitioners have preferred the claim as the legal heirs of late Indira, the mother of the deceased and being her legal heirs, the petitioners are entitled to compensation, which ought to have been awarded to their late mother. The Tribunal also found that the petitioners are major brothers having their own income and only the mother is dependent on the deceased and awarded an amount of Rs.22,05,000/- as compensation for loss of dependency. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.22,98,000/- under various heads to the petitioners with 8% interest and cost and the Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the award. Challenging the award, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal.

5. The main contention of the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company in this appeal is that the accident happened on 21.05.2007 and the claim petition is filed on 07.12.2019, 12 years after the accident. They contended that there is inordinate delay in filing the claim petition and the claim is barred by limitation. It is also contended that the petitioners, being aged 48 & 52, cannot be treated as dependent on the deceased and they are not entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency.

6. Sri.Sebastian Varghese, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company relies on the decision reported in Purohit v. Khatoonbee [(2017) 4 SCC 283] & National Insurance Company v. Jojo [ 2019 (4) KLT 127 ] in support of their contentions.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners have filed I.A. No.2 of 2022 before this Court producing the copy of an order of the Tribunal dated 09.12.2019 in I.A. No.3651 of 2019 in O.P(MV) No.635 of 2019 (claim petition herein)condoning the delay in filing the claim petition. It is submitted by Sri.A.R.Nimod, the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Original Petition was filed along with an application for condonation of delay, as a matter of abundant caution. It is after considering the reasons stated therein that the Tribunal has condoned the delay. It is contended by Sri.Nimod that the order of the Tribunal condoning the delay is not challenged by the 3rd respondent insurance company, ei