Supreme Court Halts Six-Month Limitation on Motor Accident Claims, Providing Nationwide Interim Relief to Victims

New Delhi – In a move with far-reaching implications for road accident victims across India, the Supreme Court has issued a significant interim order directing all Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) and High Courts to refrain from dismissing compensation petitions on the grounds of being time-barred. This protective measure will remain in effect pending the final adjudication on the constitutional validity of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, a contentious provision reintroduced by the 2019 amendment.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria passed the order while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the statutory six-month limitation period for filing motor accident claims. The Court's directive provides immediate and crucial relief to countless claimants who faced the potential dismissal of their cases due to this procedural hurdle.

The Court's order explicitly states:

"It is made clear that during the pendency of these petitions, the tribunal or the High Courts shall not dismiss the claim petitions on the ground of such petitions as barred by limitation as prescribed under sub-Section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988."

Acknowledging the national significance of the issue, the bench expedited the hearing, listing the matter for November 25, 2025, and directing parties to complete pleadings within two weeks.

---

The Core of the Controversy: Section 166(3) and Its Troubled History

The legal battle centres on Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which came into effect on April 1, 2022. The provision mandates:

"(3) No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident."

This clause represents a legislative U-turn. The original Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, and subsequently the 1988 Act, initially prescribed a six-month limitation. However, recognising the hardships faced by victims—many of whom are grappling with severe injuries, trauma, or the loss of a breadwinner—Parliament amended the Act in 1994 to completely remove this time limit. This amendment was widely seen as a progressive step, aligning the law with its objective as a piece of benevolent, social welfare legislation.

For nearly three decades, victims could file claims at any point, with courts focusing on the merits of the case rather than procedural timelines. The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, controversially reversed this victim-friendly position by reintroducing the rigid six-month deadline, a move that petitioners now argue is regressive, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.

---

Grounds of Challenge: A Violation of Fundamental Rights?

The primary challenge, spearheaded by a practising advocate in the case of BHAGIRATHI DASH v UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. , assails the amendment as being ultra vires the Constitution. The petition argues that Section 166(3) violates the fundamental rights of road accident victims guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21.

The key arguments advanced by the petitioners include:

1. Arbitrariness and Lack of Rationale (Violation of Article 14): The petition contends that the reintroduction of the time bar is "unreasoned, arbitrary and irrational." It highlights that the legislative "objection and reason behind such amendment is completely silent," lacking any reference to Law Commission reports, parliamentary debates, or stakeholder consultations that would justify such a restrictive measure. This absence of a clear legislative object, it is argued, makes the provision an arbitrary exercise of power.

2. Undermining the Act’s Benevolent Object: The Motor Vehicles Act is fundamentally a social welfare statute designed to provide swift and just compensation. By imposing a rigid deadline, the amendment defeats this core purpose. Victims, particularly those from rural, economically weaker, or illiterate backgrounds, often face insurmountable barriers to filing claims within six months, including prolonged hospitalisation, emotional trauma, financial distress, and lack of legal awareness.

3. Restriction on Access to Justice (Violation of Article 21): The right to a legal remedy is an integral part of the right to life and liberty. The petitioners argue that this strict limitation curtails a victim's right to access justice, effectively punishing them for circumstances often beyond their control. This procedural bar, they submit, cannot be allowed to defeat the substantive right to compensation.

The petition eloquently summarises the prayer to:

"Declare the amendment w.e.f, 1.4.2022 in view of the Government Notification is arbitrary, ultra-vires and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India and deserves to be set aside."

---

The Supreme Court's Intervention: Prioritising Substantive Justice

The Supreme Court's interim order is a testament to the judiciary's role in safeguarding citizens' rights against potentially harsh legislative provisions. The bench noted that numerous similar petitions are pending across the country and that any final decision would have a nationwide bearing. This recognition prompted the court to expedite the proceedings and issue a blanket stay on dismissals to prevent irreparable harm to claimants in the interim.

By directing the Central Government to complete its pleadings, the Court has placed the onus on the state to justify how a strict six-month deadline aligns with the legislative intent of providing relief. This sets the stage for a thorough constitutional examination of the amendment.

Implications for Legal Practitioners and Insurance Companies

This interim directive fundamentally alters the landscape for MACT litigation, at least until the final judgment.

• For Claimants' Counsel: The order provides a crucial lifeline for claims filed after the six-month period. Lawyers can now confidently file and pursue such cases without the immediate threat of dismissal on limitation grounds. It allows them to focus on the merits, such as proving negligence and quantifying damages.

• For Insurance Companies: Insurers, who often rely on procedural defences like limitation to contest claims, will now have to argue these cases on their merits. The interim order effectively removes a significant preliminary objection from their arsenal for the time being. Their legal strategy will need to pivot towards substantive defences pending the final outcome.

• For Tribunals and High Courts: The order provides clear, uniform guidance, preventing divergent interpretations and ensuring that victims are not denied justice based on their geographical location. It streamlines the judicial process for thousands of pending cases that were in limbo due to the challenged provision.

The Road Ahead

The upcoming hearing on November 25, 2025, will be pivotal. The Supreme Court is poised to deliver a landmark ruling that will either uphold the legislative wisdom of imposing a time limit for administrative efficiency or strike down the provision as an unconstitutional barrier to justice.

Given the judiciary's consistent interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act as a social welfare legislation, legal experts anticipate a judgment that balances administrative concerns with the fundamental rights of victims. The final decision will not only determine the fate of Section 166(3) but will also set a precedent on how procedural limitations are viewed in the context of benevolent statutes. For now, this interim protection ensures that the doors of justice remain open for those most in need.