In view of the proposed order to be passed, notice to

respondents is dispensed with.

The petitioner-Insurance Company is before this

Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i.

Quash the order dated 05.07.2023 passed by the

III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Raichur in FR

MVC No.575/2022, the copy of which is at

Annexure-A.

ii.

Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction

as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the

facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest

of justice.

- 3 -

On account of an accident which occurred various

persons filed claim petitions before the Trial Court in

MVC Nos.575/2022, 576/2022 and 577/2022. The

present petition arises out of an order dated

05.07.2023 passed by the III-Additional Senior Civil

Judge and JMFC, Raichur in FR MVC No.575/2022 on

an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,

condoning delay of 5 months in filing the claim

petition.

4.

The submission of Sri Mohd.Abdul Quayum, learned

counsel for the petitioner-Insurance Company is that

in view of subsection (3) of Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short hereinafter referred to

as ‘MV Act’) no claim petition can be entertained,

unless it is made within six months of the occurrence

of the accident. In that view of the matter, he

submits that the provision of the Limitation Act would

- 4 -

not be applicable to condone the delay, if any, in

filing the claim petition.

5.

The submission is that in view of subsection (3) of

Section 166 of the MV Act, the operation of Section 5

of the Limitation Act conferring power on the Tribunal

to condone the delay is excluded and on this ground,

he submits that the impugned order passed by the

Tribunal is required to be set aside and consequently,

the claim petition liable to be dismissed.

6.

Heard Sri. Mohd. Abdul Quayum, learned counsel for

the petitioner-Insurance Company and perused the

papers.

7.

Before adverting to the submission of learned

counsel for the petitioner, I would advert to the

context of the matter. The claim petition came to be

filed by the claimant seeking for compensation on

account of an accident where the claimant who is a

minor, suffered from fracture on the lateral side of

- 5 -

the left leg, upper right leg and certain other wounds

requiring major surgeries and hospitalization of the

claimant and the claimant being laid up for a period

of two months. Suffice it to say that the claim

petition had been filed in order to redress and claim

compensation for an accident which has occurred.

Whether the accident has occurred and the insurance

policy covers the same is a matter of trial. The only

issue raised in the present matter is as regards the

limitation period.

8.

Section 166 of the MV Act provides for a claim of

compensation to be made on account of either injury

or death being caused due to a motor vehicle

accident. It is amply clear that section 166 of the MV

Act is a beneficial provision which is contained in the

MV Act as amended from time to time to provide

benefit to any injured or to the legal representatives

of a deceased. The object of section 166 of the MV

Act being beneficial, any provision to be applied

- 6 -

relating thereto would also, in my considered

opinion, be required to be applied beneficially.

9.

Section 5 of

the Limitation Act provides for

condonation of delay wherever any claim petition,

appeal, etc., are filed beyond the period of limitation

and provides discretion to the Court to consider the

reasons made out in an application filed under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act and if sufficient cause

is made out to condone the delay. As aforesaid MV

Act being a beneficial enactment Section 5 of the

Limitation Act being enacted to provide succor to

persons who have come to Court late, but with a

valid reason, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would

also have to be considered beneficially and there

being no bar under the MV Act for applying the

principles under section 5 of the Limitation Act, I am

o