Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
KIRAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
SINTO P.P – Respondent
OP (MAC) 22 2023
Compensation - Motor Accident Claims - Motor Vehicles Act Section 166 - Court emphasized that the Limitation Act applies to claim petitions, allowing for delays under certain conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought compensation for injuries from a motor vehicle accident, filing a claim six months after the incident and requested to condone a 92-day delay, which the Tribunal rejected due to expiration of time limit without provisions for condonation.
Issues: Whether a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act can be dismissed without notice to the opposite party and whether the Limitation Act applies to condone delays in filing such petitions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Tribunal must issue notice to the opposite party before dismissing a claim petition and that the Limitation Act's provisions permit consideration of claims beyond the six-month limit under suitable circumstances.
Final Decision: The Tribunal's order is set aside, and the matter is directed to be reconsidered in accordance with established legal principles.
JUDGMENT
This Original petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the refusal of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in accepting the claim petition filed by the petitioner claiming compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988.
2. The records reveal that the petitioner was involved in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07.04.2022. Claiming compensation for the injuries sustained Ext.P4 Claim Petition was filed on 02.01.2023. The petitioner had also filed Ext.P5 application for condonation of delay of 92 days in filing the application. The Tribunal refused to entertain the petition and the same was returned back with an endorsement that the Original petition was filed after the expiry of six months from the date of the accident and that there was no provision in the Act for condoning the delay. The Original Petition was accordingly rejected and returned.
3. Sri. Aneesh K.R, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the question raised in this petition is no longer res integra. A learned Single Judge of this Court had occasion to consider the question in Akshay Raj v. Ministry of Law and Justice [Neutral Citation Number 2023/KER/4894] and has held that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cannot dismiss a claim petition in limine without issuing notice to the opposite party. It was further held that the provisions of the Limitation Act would be applicable for entertaining the petitions claiming compensation even beyond the period of 6 months.
4. Though the owner of the offending vehicle has been arrayed as a respondent in the O.P.(M.A.C.), as no notice was issued to the said respondent by the Tribunal and in view of the law declared as above, I am of the view that the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself by following the judgment passed in O.P.(M.A.C.) No.6 and connected cases.
In view of the discussion above, Ext.P6 order will stand set aside. The Tribunal is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations and directions in OP (MAC) No. 6/2023, for which purpose the petitioner shall re-present the petition.
This Original Petition is disposed of.
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
