The court asserted that provisions of limitation do not bar claims made after six months under the Motor Vehicles Act.

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 inI