C.R.P.No.2558 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on : 31.07.2023

Pronounced on : 18.08.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

C.R.P.No.2558 of 2023

Malaravan

...Petitioner/Claimant

Vs.

1.Praveen Travels Private Limited,

No.115/6, Santhavellore Village,

Sunguvarchathiram,

Sriperumbuddur Taluk,

Kancheepuram – 602 105.

2.Nethaji,

Driver of TN-87A-9712

3.GO Digital General Insurance Limited,

Atlantis 95,

IV Cross Road,

Koramangala Industries Layout,

V Block, Bengalure,

Karnataka – 560 095.

...Respondents/Respondents

1/34

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

C.R.P.No.2558 of 2023

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India

to allow the Civil Revision Petition by numbering

M.A.C.T.O.P.(SR).No.3280 of 2023 dated 25.04.2023 on the file of

the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Court of

Small Causes, Chennai.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.M.Jaisingh

For Respondents

:

Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan

Amicus Curiae

ORDER

The present revision petition raises a very interesting

question of law. The question of law is the interpretation of

Section 166 (3) and (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Facts of the case

2.The case of the petitioner is that he was driving towards

Oragadam Village on his way back home. The 1^st respondent's

vehicle was driven by the 2^nd respondent in a negligent manner

which resulted in injury. The date of the accident is 11.10.2022. He

2/34

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

C.R.P.No.2558 of 2023

filed his Claim Petition claiming compensation under Section 140

read with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in

M.A.C.T.O.P.(SR).No.3280 of 2023 on 19.04.2023. The said petition

was returned on 25.04.2023. The return reads as follows:

“Petition is returned as per limitation barred.”

Challenging the said return, the present revision has been filed.

3.Mr.Jaisingh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would submit that the Claim Petition was filed with a delay of 8

days due to his treatment. On account of the accident, the

petitioner suffered fracture in his left leg and so, he had to rely

upon his family members for his day to day life. Hence, he could

not file the claim petition within six months. He would state that

he was suffering from disability as the Doctors have advised him,

being a compound wound he would have to take bed rest and

consequently, there is a delay. He would request a direction to be

given in this Revision to number the MACTOP.

3/34

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

C.R.P.No.2558 of 2023

4.Considering the importance of the issue, I appointed

Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate, Madras High Court, as an

Amicus Curiae. This Court places on record its gratitude for the

ready acceptance of this assignment by Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan. The

learned counsel has been appointed as Amicus Curiae in several

matters by this Court and by the Supreme Court in matters

relating to insurance and the interpretation of Motor Vehicles Act.

History of limitations to petitions for compensation

5.Before dealing with the merits of the case, it is necessary to

deal with how the Law relating to Limitation arose in the Motor

Vehicles Act.

6.The first statutory intervention with respect to Motor

Vehicles came under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. This

legislation was in force for nearly fifty years. Under Section 110A

4/34

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

C.R.P.No.2558 of 2023

of the Motor Vehicles Act, the period of limitation for the purpose

of making a claim was “six months” from the date of the accident.

The rigour of the Section was softened by a proviso being added to

the said Section. Under that proviso, it was left to the discretion of

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to condone the delay in filing

the petition claiming compensation if “sufficient cause” had been

shown. This applied for any length of delay