C.R.P.No.3654 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10.10.2023

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

C.R.P.No.3654 of 2023

1.Karpagam

2.Mounika

3.Santhosh Kumar

4.Nallaiyan

...

Petitioners

-Vs-

1.Jaspal Singh Dhillon

2.Chola MS General Insurance

House No.32/915. Shyam Nagar

Shyam School, KPICHE Ravi

CG Raipur, Chattisgarh-492 006.

... Respondents

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order of rejection of Claim

Petition of unnumbered MCOP SR.No.1770 of 2023 dated 21.02.2023 on

the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge,

Salem.

For Petitioner

:

Ms.J.Amritha Sarayoo

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.3654 of 2023

ORDER

Challenging the impugned docket order of rejecting claim petition

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP SR.No. 1770 of

2023 filed by the claimants, they have preferred this Civil Revision

Petition.

2. Since the relief sought challenging the order of Claims Tribunal,

notice to the respondents is dispensed with.

3. The learned counsel for Revision Petitioners would submit that

the legal heirs of deceased Sakthivel filed a claim petition claiming

compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem, but the

same was rejected before numbering in M.C.O.P.SR.No. 1770 of 2023 by

the learned Special District Judge, MCOP Tribunal, Salem stating reasons

in the docket of claim petition, which is reproduced hereunder :-

“As per the order of the order of Hon'ble High Court,

Madras, dated 07.12.2022 in C.R.P. (PD) No.4066 of 2022,

the MCOP shall be filed within 6 months from the date of

01.04.2022 for the accident took place prior to 01.04.2022.

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.3654 of 2023

As per the petition version, the accident took place on

07.07.2022. Therefore, this petition and within filed on or

before 30.09.2022. But, this petition filed after 4 months from

the date of lapse of limitation. Therefore,this petition is

clearly barred by limitation in view of the above order of the

Hon'ble High Court. When in the petition is barred any law

for time being in force, it is one among the grounds for

rejection. Hence, this petition is hereby rejected.”

Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal held that claim petition is barred by

limitation. Challenging the docket order, the claimants preferred this Civil

Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel for Revision Petitioners relied the ratio laid

down in the authority reported in 2023 Livelaw (Ker) 50 in the case of

Akshay Raj vs. Ministry of Law and Justice, Legislative Department,

wherein the High Court of Kerala in para 24 held as follows :-

“24.

As a fall out of my findings, the impugned orders are

set aside, it is held that the provisions of the Limitation Act

would be applicable for entertaining the petitions for

claiming the compensation even beyond the period of six

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.R.P.No.3654 of 2023

months, for, by taking into consideration, Rule 17 of

Annexure XIII framed under Rule 150A of the Central Motor

Vehicle Rules, 1989, the limitation to entertain the claim

petition cannot be restricted to six (6) months as there is no

provision in the Act excluding the applicability of provision

of Sec.29(2) of the Limitation Act. In other words, it is held

that the claim petitions, if filed beyond the period of six

months cannot be dismissed in limine.”

On relying the aforesaid authority, the learned counsel for Revision

Petitioners argue that the claim petition cannot be rejected on the ground of

limitation.

5. Records perused. The reasons assigned by the Revision Petitione