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 10.12.2021 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. Prior to the amendment caused in the Motor Vehicles Act, the provisions dealing with no fault liability and entertainment of claim petitions under Section 92A and Section 110A of 1939 Act, was in existence. The aforementioned Act has been amended by Motor Vehicles Act in 1988 and the claim petition was to be filed within a period of six months. Prior to aforementioned amendment in 1994, 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 reintroduction of the provision which was in vogue at the time when Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was promulgated, but there was no amendment in Section 217 dealing with repealing and savings clause.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the accident in the present case had occurred on 10.12.2021. At the relevant point of time, statutory right was available, claimant was 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 17.6.2022 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 summarily.

4. I have heard the counsel for parties and appraised the paper book.

5. It is a matter of record that when the old Motor Vehicles Act 1939 was substituted and repealed by Act of 1988, the provision of limiting the right to file claim petition was six months.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, 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 10.12.2021 The claim petition was filed on 16.06.2022. By that time the new amendment had already come into force by Act 32 of 2019 effective from 1.4.2022 resulting into the impugned order.

The same reads as under :

“This application for compensation u/S 166 of MV Act filed before this tribunal on 16.06.2022. The cause of action, the occurrence of Motor Accident, was on 10.12.2021 and this application is preferred after the lapse 6 months. As per S.166(3) of MV Act, no application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within 6 months of the occurrence of accident. So this application cannot be entertained as it is barred by limitation. The application is rejected.”

6. It is settled law that in case there is no provision protecting the rights of a litigant viz by causing amendment which inexplicably takes away exceptional righ