While the Motor Vehicles Act does not prescribe a specific limitation period for filing claim petitions, such claims must be filed within a reasonable time; claims filed after an inordinate, unexplained delay become 'stale' or 'dead' and are liable to be dismissed.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-16378-CII-2019

This is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 21 days in filing the appeal.

After going through the contents of the application, which is supported by affidavit of Clerk of learned counsel for the appellants, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and delay of 21 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

MAIN CASE

The present appeal has been filed by the claimants against the dismissal of their claim petition by the learned MACT, Sangrur (hereinafter ‘the Tribunal’), vide Award dated 01.04.2019 passed in MACP Case No.520 dated 05.03.2018 filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The three claimants are the 14-year-old son, 17-year-old daughter, and widow of deceased Harpreet Singh, who was stated to be 25 years old at the time of accident.

2. It was the pleaded case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal that deceased Harpreet Singh had died due to the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 31.03.2006 due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus bearing registration No.PB-11H-9787 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”) being driven by respondent No.1 and owned by respondents No.2 and 3.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal had dismissed the Claim Petition on the ground that in respect of the accident dated 31.03.2006, the appellants had filed Claim Petition on 05.03.2018. Learned counsel submits that the learned Tribunal was in error in doing so, as at the time of filing of Claim Petition, there was no statutory period of limitation prescribed under the Act. It is submitted that learned Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the Act is a beneficial legislation which has been enacted to provide compensation for loss on account of accidental injuries involving motor vehicles. The deceased in the present case was working as a laborer. The claimants in the present case are poor and illiterate persons. They were unaware of their right to receive compensation through the learned Tribunal. Further, there is no period of limitation provided for filing a Claim Petition under the Act. Thus, the intention of the legislature was that a claim of a destitute person should not be thrown out merely on the ground of limitation. It is submitted that therefore appellants could not have been nonsuited on ground of limitation.

4. Ld. Counsel further submits that the present Claim Petition was filed under Section 163(A) of the Act. The aforesaid Section deals with ‘no fault liability’ principle on account of accidents involving motor vehicles. In the present case, the claimants are poor illiterate persons, who were unaware of their right to receive compensation, otherwise there was no reason for them not to approach the learned Tribunal for grant of compensation. Therefore, the present case is a fit one to exercise jurisdiction for the purpose of grant of compensation under the Act. The learned Tribunal returned the finding that although there is no period of limitation provided under the Act, yet the claim of claimants was stale and dead as the same was filed after a gap of 12 years from the date of accident. The aforesaid findings returned by the learned Tribunal are liable to be modified and the claimants be granted compensation under Section 163(A) of the Act.

5. In support of his above-said contentions, lea