Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN, J
Bheru Lal S/o Mohanlal – Appellant
Versus
Ram Lal S/o Kesra – Respondent
CMA / 4252 / 2024
(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 5 of Limitation Act - Claim petitions dismissed as time-barred - The tribunal ruled that applications for compensation under Section 166(3) must be filed within six months of the accident, with no provision for condonation of delay. The appellants argued that the law of limitation should not apply and cited various judgments to support their claims. However, the court found the dismissal of the petitions justified as they were filed beyond the prescribed period. (Paras 4, 21, 22)
(B) Limitation - The court underscored that the principles of limitation are based on sound public policy and should not be disregarded in the interest of justice. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
Multiple appeals were filed by claimants whose compensation claims were rejected by the MACT on grounds of being time-barred, with specific details regarding the dates of accidents and filing of petitions provided.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the decisions of the MACTs, affirming that the claim petitions were filed beyond the statutory limit and that the law of limitation applies.
Issues: The main issue was whether the law of limitation applies to claims under Section 166 of the MV Act and if a liberal approach to filing beyond the period is justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the law of limitation is a fundamental principle and should not be compromised, emphasizing that the claim petitions were rightly dismissed as time-barred.
Result: All civil misc. appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court observations on the statutory requirements and the implications of the limitation period. (Para 10) |
Order
19/02/2025
1. These civil misc. appeal raises common question of law, therefore, we are deciding all these appeals by a common order.
2. The appellant(s) claimant(s) have filed a petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of MV Act before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as “MACT”) for claiming compensation from respondents non-claimants for injuries/death due to accident caused by an offending vehicle of respondent(s).
3. The tribunal has rejected the claim petition(s), as it was filed beyond prescribed period of limitation under Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act (as amended).
4. Learned counsel for appellant(s) submitted that to file a claim petition, the law of limitation is not applicable and in case any period of limitation is introduced by the Parliament then, provision under Section 5 of Limitation Act is also applicable. He further submitted that since this is a beneficial litigation for innocent victims of the accident and under beneficial legislation, the court has to consider the law in favour of claimant(s). Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial court has committed serious error while rejecting the claim petition(s) on the ground that same were filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the M.V. Act.
5. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon judgment in case of Akshay Raj Vs. Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Department) 2023 LIVE Law (Kerala) 50 and submitted that a claim petition filed beyond period of six months as prescribed under Section 166 (3) of MV Act cannot be dismissed by MACT in limeline. He further referred the judgment of Madras High Court in case of Thoman Daniel and Ors. Vs. Selvi and Ors. C.R.P. (MD) No. 761/2024 and submitted that a liberty is granted to the claimants to enable them to refile before the tribunal after result of the outcome to challenge made to the constitutional validity of Section 166 (3) of MV (amended) Act pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bhagirathi Dash Vs. Union of India & Anr. In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 166/2024. Learned counsel has further referred the circular dated 02.02.2024 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MVL Section) and submitted that in case a police report is filed even beyond the period of six months, then, same can be registered at any point of time and in such case, the law of limitation is not applicable.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments as referred by learned counsel for appellants.
7. Facts:-
(i)S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4252/2024- Instant appeal is preferred by appellant claimant aggrieved from order dated 27.08.2024 in MAC Case no. 418/2023 passed by MACT, Tonk wherein on an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC filed by Insurance Company the claim petition was rejected as same is barred by law. As per facts, the date of accident is06.11.2022 whereas claim petition was filed on 03.06.2023.
(ii) S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4373/2024 – Instant appeal is filed aggrieved from rejection of MAC Claim Petition No. 46/2023 by learned MACT, Baran on 15.07.2024 whereby on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by Insurance Company, the claim petition was filed is time barred. As per facts, the accident occurred on 07.10.2019 but claim petition was filed on 02.02.2023.
(iii) S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4626/2024- Instant appeal is filed against the order dated 16.08.2024 in MAC Case no. 24/2023 passed by MACT (Additional District Judge no.1), Khetri, District Jhunjhunu whereby on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC claim petition was rejected as time barred. As per facts the accident occurred on 10.02.2022 but claim petition was filed on 10.02.2023.
(iv) S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4810/2024- Instant appeal is filed by appellant claimant aggr
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
