IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 19.07.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN C.R.P.No.2426 of 2023 Minor Jeeva ... Petitioner Vs.

1. Prakashraj

2. The Chief Executive Claims Officer, IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited, IFFCO Bhavan, No.128, Habibulla Road, 4th floor, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017 ... Respondents Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct the MAC Tribunal / Subordinate Judge, Gingee to take on file unnumbered M.A.C.T.O.P.SR No.2459 of 2023 filed by the petitioner and proceed in accordance with law.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Santhanaraman O R D E R The present revision petition is filed against the un-numbered claim application filed in M.C.O.P. SR.No.2459 of 2023, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gingee.

2. M.C.O.P.SR.No.2459 of 2023 is filed seeking compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Acts, in respect of injuries sustained in the accident that had taken place on 23.10.2021. However, the same is returned with an endorsement that claim of the claimant is barred by limitation on account of the amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act came into force by Act 32 of 2019 with effect from 01.04.2022. Learned trial Judge has passed order based on the order passed in C.R.P.(PD).No.4066 of 2022, in which this Court has held that claim made beyond period of limitation as per Amendment Act 32 of 2019 is barred by limitation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant submitted that in a similar case, the High Court of Kerala has passed an order in Sathy vs.Dileep, reported in 2022 (2) TN MAC 1 (Ker.), O.P.(MAC).No.51 of 2022 wherein direction was given to approach the Tribunal concerned to admit M.C.O.P., and proceed with the case. Para Nos.7 to 10 of the judgment of the Kerala High Court reads as follows:

“?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 It is a matter of record that when the old Motor Vehicles Act 1939 was substituted and repealed by Act of 1988, the provision of limiting the right to file claim petition was six months.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 O.P.(MAC) No.51/2022 6 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. 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 is filed under Section 166(1) of MV Act, 1988. The date of accident is 23.5.2019. As per Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 2019, which came into force with effect from 1.4.2022, the application to be filed within six months of the occurrence of the accident (vide Section 166(3) of the M.V.Act, 1988). The present application filed on 23.4.2022 is barred by limitation. In the result, this application is rejected as time barred.? 8. 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 rights, then the provisions of Section 6 of General Clauses Act, 1897 would come into play. Similar situation had occurred when the amendment was caused in the old Act of 1939 by introducing Act of 1988 wherein in a case of no fault liability the maximum compensation of MACT award was Rs.15,000/~. The High Court while entertaining the appeal by O.P.(MAC) No.51/2022 7 taking aid of the amended provisions of Section 140 introduced by way of 1988 amendments gave the benefit of Rs.50,000/~. The aforementioned objection was