Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 10646
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, J
PRAJEESH G K – Appellant
Versus
ALAYIN YOHANNAN – Respondent
OP (MAC) 12 2023
K.S.BABU, N.SUDHA BABU, SHANKAR P.N., SUMANGALA K.S., GOPI PARVATHY GIRISH
The court concluded that the Limitation Act applies to claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, allowing for extensions in certain situations, thus ensuring that legitimate claims are not barred solely due to technical limitations.
Headnote:
Limitation - Motor Accident Claims - Act Section List - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166; Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 29(2)
Fact of the Case:
Seven original petitions were filed against an order dismissing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for being barred by limitation. The claim arose from an accident on 26.5.2022, with the petition submitted on 28.11.2022, three days after the six-month limitation expired.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the MACT failed to appropriately apply the principles of limitation and did not consider the permissible mechanisms like the filing of Accident Reports, which could allow for extensions under certain circumstances. It ruled that limitations set forth should not bar claims if reasonable circumstances existed.
Issues: Whether the claim petitions were correctly dismissed on the grounds of limitation as prescribed under the Motor Vehicles Act, and if the provisions of the Limitation Act should apply in such cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable to claims under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and reasonable extensions for filing claims can be allowed, contradicting the initial dismissal based solely on strict adherence to the six-month limit.
Final Decision: The original petitions are allowed, and the dismissals of claim petitions by the MACT are set aside.
JUDGMENT
Seven original petitions ie., OP MAC No.6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17 of 2023 preferred against identical order dismissing the claim petition to be barred by limitation, involving common question of fact and law are being disposed off by common judgment. The main case is taken as O.P (MAC) No.6 of 2023.
2. O.P (MAC) No.6 of 2023 has been preferred against the order dated 30.11.2022 of the MACT, North Paravur dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the amended Motor Vehicles Act being barred by the limitation. 3. Petitioner, Akshay Raj, aged 26 years preferred a claim petition before the learned MACT on the ground that on 26.5.2022 while driving a motor vehicle bearing registration No.KL-P-42P 7106 at about 8.40 a.m had met with an accident and suffered injuries, resulting into registration of FIR 590 of 2022. Learned MACT vide impugned order, dated 30.11.2022 rejected the claim application/petition simply on the ground that the claim petition was filed beyond the period of six months ie., on 28.11.2022 as the limitation expired on 25.11.2022. and thus there was a delay of almost three days. It is contended that the manner and the mode in which the order has been passed is wholly alien to settled principles as the learned MACT was required to frame the issues, for the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law.
4. Section 166 (3) does not exclude the applicability of the limitation Act 1963 and therefore the provisions of Section 29 (2) of the limitation Act 1963 would squarely be applicable for the reason that on perusal of provisions of sub Section 4 of , it is evident that even in the absence of claim preferred by a claimant, the Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents by police/investigation officer forwarded to it under section 159 as an application for compensation under this Act. Section 159 enjoins an obligation upon the police officer during the investigation to prepare an Accident Information Report for facilitating the settlement of claim in such formal manner within three (3) months containing such particular and submit to the claim Tribunal or any other agency as prescribed.
5. Learned MACT ignored to refer to the provisions of Rule 150(A) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 prescribing the procedure for holding investigation of road accidents arising out of the use of motor vehicles, to be in accordance with the Annexure-XIII. The manner of submission of form, including electronic submission on such Portal has been specified. As per Annexure-XIII sub Rule 12, investigation officer can furnish a copy of the detailed accident report within a period of ninety (90) days of the accident and in case it is not filed within the period prescribed for the reasons beyond his control, particularly, in cases of hit and run accidents; cases where the parties reside outside the jurisdiction of the court; where the driving licence is issued outside the jurisdiction of the court or the victim(s) had suffered grievous injuries or had been undergoing continuous treatment, can approach the Claims Tribunal for 'extension of time' to file “Interim Accident Report” or “Detailed Accident Report” and on receipt of such application, Tribunal has the power to extend the time as it considers appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. Since this Court almost everyday was confronted with such petitions, requested Sri. S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel of this Court to assist the Court. Mr. S. Sreekumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted the court submitted that the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act do not specifically exclude provisions of limitation Act. In support, relied upon the following judgments of the Supreme Court in Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil Aboobacker (1995) 5 SCC 5 , M.P Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 7 SCC 58 , Om Prakash v. Ashwani Kumar Bassi (2010) 9 SCC 183 , Full Bench judgment of this Court in
