JUDGMENT

Inter alia alleges that the objection qua limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. The claim petition in respect of an accident occurred on 23.5.2019 could not have been rejected summarily by taking the aid of amendment caused in Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 substituted by Act 32 of 2019 made effective from 1.4.2022 as the said amendment would have a prospective effect. Otherwise with the stroke of the amendment the right available to the injured and the claimants of the deceased person would be taken away.

2. Sri.Lal George accepts notice for the third respondent, the contesting respondent and submits that nothing has been saved under repealing and savings clause under Section 217 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus the order is perfectly legal and justified.

3. Prior to the amendment caused in the Motor Vehicles Act, Act 1939 was in existence dealing with the provisions of providing no fault liability and entertainment of claim petitions under Section 92A and Section 110A of 1939 Act. The aforementioned Act was amended by Motor Vehicles Act in 1988 and the claim petition was to be filed within a period of six months.

The aforementioned amendment by way of amendment in 1994 prescribed no limitation to file claim petitions in respect of the accident occurred at any point of time. Legislature in its wisdom introduced the Act of 32 of 2019 effective from 1.4.2022 by bringing back the old provisions of 166(3) restricting the entertainment of the application for compensation unless it is made within a period of six months from the occurrence of the accident. While causing the amendment and reintroducing the provision which was in vogue at the time when Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was promulgated, there was no amendment in Section 217 dealing with repealing and savings clause.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the accident in the present case had occurred on 23.5.2019. At the relevant point of time, statutory right was available, claimants were entitled to file the claim petition untrammeled by any period of limitation. But, in the amendment aforementioned by Act 32 of 2019 effective from 1.4.2022, the right has been taken away resulting into the impugned order dated 23.4.2022 whereby the application for compensation filed on the same date has been dismissed being barred by law of limitation. The objection qua limitation, a mixed question of fact and law, can be decided only when the parties are made to lead evidence by framing the issues. The petition should not have been rejected in a summarily manner.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 Insurance Company submitted that in the absence of any provision in the repealing and savings clause, the order under challenge is perfectly justified as period of six months had elapsed on 22.11.2009. Though the amendment came on 1.4.2022, nothing prevented the claimants to prefer the claim petition within the parameters of law which was then in vogue and thus urge this Court for dismissal of the Original Petition.

6. I have heard the counsel parties and appraised the paper book.

7. It is a matter of record that when the old Motor Vehicles Act 1939 was substituted and repealed by Act of 1988, the provision of limiting the right to file claim petition was six months. The aforementioned period of six months was omitted by way of amendment in the year 1994. Thus, the affected parties had a right to file claim petition in a case of injury or death at any point of time untrammeled by the objection of limitation. Legislature in the wisdom on due deliberation have reintroduced the aforementioned erstwhile provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 166 limiting the right to entertain the claim petition before the concerned court within a period of six months from the date of the accident. The accident in this case, as noticed above, had occurred on 23.5.2019. The claim petition was filed on 23.4.2022.