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 - The court interpreted the provisions governing compensation due to death or grievous hurt in accidents, allowing claims irrespective of fault within the stipulated timelines, reaffirming access to justice for victims.
Fact of the Case:
An order dismissing claim petitions for compensation due to an accident was challenged, with arguments focusing on the relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act related to compensation and limitations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that claims made under Section 164 should not be barred by the limitation provisions in Section 166(3), emphasizing the non obstante nature of Section 164.
Issues: Whether the limitation period under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act prevents claims filed under Section 164 for compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The non obstante clause in Section 164 allows claims for compensation regardless of the limitation under Section 166(3), establishing that claimants are entitled to pursue claims without being restrained by these limitations.
Final Decision: The dismissal order was set aside, and the original petition was directed to be registered and tried 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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.