IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.1046 of 2024 An appeal under Section-173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

………………

Gitanjali Dash and Anr. …. Appellants -versus-

Puskar Mahapatra and Anr.

…. Respondents For Appellants : Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. A. Dash, Advocate PRESENT:

THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing:13.03.2025 & Date of Judgment: 13.03.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. Perused the tracking report. Since notice issued to respondent no.1 has been duly served, notice on Respondent No.1 is treated as sufficient.

3. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the impugned judgment dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned District Judge- cum-1^st MACT, Jagatsinghpur in MAC Case No.254 of 2021.

4. It is contended that the appellants-claimants seeking grant of compensation on account of death of their son in a road accident which took place on 02.01.2010, filed MAC Case No.254 of 2021 in the file of learned District Judge-cum-1^stM.A.C.T., Jagatsinghpur. The proceeding in question was initiated U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The Tribunal initially when rejected the claim with passing of a nil award on 12.12.2023, the appellants herein challenging such order of the tribunal, approached this Court in MACA No.1260 of 2023.

4.1. It is contended that this Court vide judgment dated 06.05.2024 while allowing the appeal, quashed the judgment dated 12.12.2023 so passed by the Tribunal in MAC Case No.254 of 2021. While setting aside the same, this Court directed the learned Tribunal to dispose of the matter afresh by giving due opportunity of hearing to both the sides.

4.2. It is contended that on such remand of the matter, the Tribunal took up the issue and found that the appellants-claimants are entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.2,92,328/- on different counts. But while holding so, the claim application was dismissed vide the impugned order dated

25.09.2024 on the ground that it is time barred.

4.3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal came to such a conclusion that the claim application is time barred inter alia on the ground that there is delay in lodging the claim petition. The tribunal on the earlier occasion relying on the amendment carried to Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 vide Amended Act, 2019 rejected the claim vide judgment dated 12.12.2023. But this Court after going through the relevant provision, was pleased to set aside the judgment dated 12.12.2023 vide its judgment dated 06.05.2024 in MACA No.1260 of 2023 and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

4.4. Therefore, on the face of such order passed by this Court in MACA No.1260 of 2023, the Tribunal ought not to have held the claim of the appellants as time barred, while rejecting the application vide the impugned order dated 25.09.2024.

4.5. Learned counsel for the appellants with regard to filing of such claim application contended that initially under the provisions contained under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, no application for such compensation was entertainable unless it is made within 6 (six) months of the occurrence of the accident. However, as provided in the proviso to Section-110-A(3) of the 1939 Act, the Tribunal may entertain the application after expiry of

6 (six) months, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in making the application on time.

4.6. It is contended that the aforesaid provisions contained under the 1939 Act remained valid till 01.07.1989, when the MV Act, 1988 came into force. As provided under Section 166 (3) of the MV Act, 1988, similar provision was also made that no application for such compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within 6(six) months of the occurrence o