Dhannalal
Vs. D.P. Vijayvargiya & Ors [1996] INSC 678 (7 May 1996)
Singh
N.P. (J) Singh N.P. (J) Faizan Uddin (J) N.P. Singh. J
CITATION:
1996 SCC (4) 652 JT 1996 (5) 601 1996 SCALE (4)458
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
Leave
granted.
The
appellant while going on read on 4.12.1990 became victim of an accident,
because of the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by respondent No.1
(hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent'). The appellant suffered serious
injuries and was admitted in Badwah Hospital, the same day. On 7.12.1990 he was
shifted to M.Y. Hospital, Indore and was treated as an indoor
patient till 27.9.1991.
Because
of the accident the appellant became permanently disabled, as his left leg
above thigh and hip had been fractured. He also lost his services as a Driver.
The claim petition for compensation was filed before the Additional Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Badwah (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') on
7.12.1991 along with an application for condonation of delay which was of four
days only. The Tribunal by its order dated 18.11.1993 condoned the delay in
filing the claim petition. The validity of the said order was challenged by the
respondent before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The High Court by its order dated
31.7.1995 set aside the order of the Tribunal aforesaid condoning the delay
saying that in view of sub- section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'') the power of condonation by
the Tribunal has been withdrawn and any claim must be filed within the period
prescribed therein. The High Court further observed that by prescribing the
fixed period for filing the petition for claim, the intention was that the
'sword of liability of paying compensation in respect of accident caused by
motor vehicle should not be permitted to hover on the head of the person owning
the said vehicle and person driving such vehicle.' It was also pointed out that
the position was different under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in which
sub-section (3) of Section 110-A although prescribed a period of six months for
filing an application for compensation from the date of the accident, but
vested power in Tribunal to entertain such application even after the expiry of
the said period of six months, if the Tribunal was satisfied that the claimant
was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time.
Sub-section
(3) of Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 provided:
"No
application for such compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within
six months of the occurrence of the accident:
Provided
that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the
said period of six months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented
by sufficient cause from making the application in time." The Act which
repealed the earlier Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 came in force w.e.f. 1.7.1989.
The new Act prescribed a period of limitation for filing the claim petition in
sub-section (3) of Section 166. Said subsection provided:
"No
application for such compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within
six months of the occurrence of the accident.
Provided
that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the
said period of six months but not later than twelve months, if it is satisfied
that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the
application in time." According to the High Court, as proviso to
sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act said that Claims Tribunal may entertain
the application after the expiry of the said period of six months 'but not
later than twelve months', any application filed beyond the period of twelve
months from the date of the accident cannot he entertained as no discretion had
been left with the Tribunal to consider the circumstances because of which the
application for claim could not be filed within the period of twelve months of
the occurrence of the accident.
Before
the scope of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act is examined, it may be
pointed out that the aforesaid sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act has
been omitted by Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which
came in force w.e.f. 14.11.1994. The effect of the Amending Act is that w.e.f.
14.11.1994 there is no limitation for filing claims before the Tribunal in
respect of any accident. It can be said that Parliament realized the grave
injustice and injury which was being caused to the heirs and legal
representatives of the victims who died in accidents by rejecting their claim
petitions only on ground of limitation. It is a matter of common knowledge that
majority of the claimants for such compensation are ignorant about the period
during which such claims should be preferred. After the death due to the accident,
of the bread earner of the family, in many cases such claimants are virtually
on the streets. Even in cases where the victims escapes death some of such
victims are hospitalized for months if not for years. In the present. case
itself the applicant claims that he met with the accident on 4.12.1990 and he
was being treated as an indoor patient till 27.9.1991. According to us, in its
wisdom the Parliament, rightly thought that prescribing a period of limitation
and restricting the power of Tribunal to entertain any claim petition beyond
the period of twelve months from the date of the accident was harsh,
inequitable and in many cases was likely to cause injustice to the claimants.
The present case is a glaring example where the appellant has been deprived by
the order of the High Court from claiming the compensation because of delay of
only four days in preferring the claim petition.
In
this background, now it has to be examined as to what is the effect of omission
of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act. From the Amending Act it does not
appear that the said sub-section (3) has been deleted retrospectively. But at
the same the Amending Act to show that benefit of deletion of sub- section (3)
of Section 166 is not to be extended to pending claim petitions where a plea of
limitation has been raised.
The
effect of deletion of sub-section (3) from Section 166 of the Act can be tested
by an illustration. Suppose an accident had taken place two years before
14.11.1994 when sub-section (3) was omitted from Section 166. For one reason or
the other no claim petition had been filed by the victim or the heirs of the
victim till 14.11.1994. Can a claim petition be not filed after 14.11.1994 in
respect of such accident? Whether a claim petition filed after 14.11.1994 can
be rejected by the Tribunal on the ground of limitation saying that the period
of twelve months which had been prescribed when sub-section (3) of Section 166
was in force having expired the right to prefer the claim petition had been
extinguished and shall not be revived after deletion of sub-section (3) of
Section 166 w.e.f. 14.11.1994? According to us, the answer should be in
negative. When sub-section (3) of Section 166 has been omitted, then the
Tribunal has to entertain a claim petition without taking note of the date on
which such accident had taken place. The claim petitions cannot be thrown out
on the ground that such claim petitions were barred by time when sub-section
(3) of Section 166 was in force. It need not be impressed that Parliament from
time to time has introduced amendments in the old Act as well as in the new Act
in order to protect the interest of the victims of the accidents and their
heirs if the victims die. One such amendment has been introduced in the Act by
the aforesaid Amendment Act 54 of 1994 by substituting sub-section (6) of
Section 158 which provides:
"As
soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury
to any person is recorded or report under this section is completed by a police
officer, the officer incharge of the police station shall forward a copy of the
same within thirty days from the date of recording of information or, as the
case may be, on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal having
jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer and where a copy is
made available to the owner, he shall also within thirty days of receipt of
such report, forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and Insurer." In
view of sub-section (6) of Section 158 of the Act the officer incharge of the
police station is enjoined to forward a copy of information/report regarding
the accident to the Tribunal having jurisdiction. A copy whereof has also to be
forwarded to the concerned Insurer. it also requires that where a copy is made
available to the owner of the vehicle, he shall within thirty days of receipt
of such copy forward the same to the claims Tribunal and insurer. In this
background, the deletion of sub-section (3) from Section 166 should be given
full effect so that the object of deletion of said section by the Parliament is
not defeated. If a victim of the accident or heirs of the deceased victim can
prefer claim for compensation although not being preferred earlier because of
the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed, how the victim or the heirs
of the deceased shall be in a worse position if the question of condonation of
delay in filling the claim petition is pending either before the Tribunal, High
Court or the Supreme Court. The present appeal is one such case. The appellant
has been pursuing from Tribunal to this Court. His right to get compensation in
connection with the accident in question is being resisted by the respondents
on the ground of delay in filling the same. If he had not filed any petition
for claim till 14.11.1994 in respect of the accident which took place on
4.12.1990, tn view of the Amending Act he became entitled to file such claim
petition, the period of limitation having been deleted, the claim petition
which has been filed and is being pursued upto this Court cannot be thrown out
on the ground of limitation.
The
matter will be different if any claimant having filed a petition for claim
beyond time which has been rejected by the Tribunal or the High Court, the
claimant does not challenge the same and allows the said judicial order to
become final. The aforesaid Amending Act shall be of no help to such claimant. The
reason being that a judicial order saying that such petition of claim was
barred by limitation has attained finality. But that principle will not govern
cases where the dispute as to whether petition for claim having been filed
beyond the period of twelve months from the date of the accident is pending
consideration either before the Tribunal, High Court or this Court. In such
cases, the benefit of amendment of subsection (3) of Section 166 should be
extended.
Accordingly,
we allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court. We
direct the Tribunal to entertain the petition for claim filed on behalf of the
appellant and to dispose of the same as early as possible in accordance with
law. There shall be no order as to costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
