Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 227 (GAU)

Rajib Bhattacharjee v. Union of India and Ors.

1999-06-28

H.K.KUMAR SINGH

body1999
Heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. KN Bhattacharjee, the learned Senior Central Govt Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioners herein Hied an application claiming compensation for the death of their predecessor who died on 12.8.87 in a motor accident. The said claim petition was filed on 31.8.96 with an application for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition before the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Tripura, Kailashahar. The same was registered as Title Suit (MACT) No. 18 of 1996. 3. After hearing the petitioners, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejected the application for condonation vide his order dated 24.5.97 holding that the condonation application is barred by limitation and as such not maintainable as no ground for delay was given. The petitioners have come to this Court challenging the aforesaid order of the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by filing the present application under section 115 of CPC. 4. In course of hearing the learned counsel of both the parties have submitted various decisions of different High Courts on the point as to whether the petition under section 115 of CPC will be held maintainable before this Court against an order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. “5. Even the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited two decisions of the Apex Court. In the case of State of Haryana, vs. Darshana Devi & others, reported in AC J1979 205 the Apex Court held that provisions of Order XXXin of CPC should be made available so that indigent persons may claim for motor accident claims without filing any court fees, and further the Apex Court observed that the appropriate legislation was to be framed to enable the claimants to file compensation petition without payment of court fees. 6. In the second case ie in the case of Bhagwati Devi & others vs. M/s IS Goel & others reported in 1983 ACJ 123, the Apex Court following the decision passed in the former case ie Darshana Devi (supra) held that the provision of section 25 of the CPC was held applicable and as such the Supreme Court transferred a case pending in a Tribunal at Moradabad to another Claims Tribunal at Delhi in exercise of powers under section 115 of CPC. 7. 7. Further, the learned counsel of both sides have submitted, as stated above, the decisions of various other High Courts passed in different cases holding that certain provisions of CPC are applicable whereas some other High Courts passed orders holding that provisions of CPC are not strictly applicable. 8. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act are not Court, but they have the trappings of the Court. Powers of the Tribunal are conferred and defined by the statute and the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal and the procedures are also prescribed by law, or in absence thereof in the statute, the Tribunal regulates it on procedure. Section 169 of 1988 Act describes the powers and procedures of the Tribunal and again under section 176 the State Govt is empowered to make rules for the matters as mentioned in the section. But even if the Tribunals are exercising powers of civil Court or the same of the procedures prescribed under CPC the Tribunal constituted under Motor Vehicles Act is still a Tribunal and not a civil Court. Again, rules and revision are matters of statute. The appellate and revisional power cannot be assured or presumed in a absence of any specific provisions in the statute. But, I am not inplined to delve into the matter regarding the point as to whether section 115 of CPC is applicable in respect of an order passed by Claims Tribunal for the reasons stated below. 9. In the present case, as stated above, the accident took place on 12.8.1987 and the claim petition along with an application for condonation was filed on 31.8.96. Admittedly taking into consideration the date of accident, as provided for under section 11 OA (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), a condonation application for filing oif the claim petition was available if the application could not be made within the period of six months from the date of accident. But on coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with effect from 1.7.89 the period of limitation for the claim petition was presumed as six months from the date of occurrence again condonation application could be filed within a further period of six months after expiry of the aforesaid six months period under suS-section (3) of section 166 of 1988 Act. But the aforesaid provision of sub-section (3) of section 166 was deleted by the Amendment Act No. 4 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.94. 10. Now the question is whether the claim petition in the present case which was filed on 31.8.96 in respect of Motor Accident which occurred on 12.8.87 will be held to be baited by time and if so any condonation petition may be filed. The matter is no more res integra in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1996 SC 2155 (Dhannalal vs. DP Vijayvargia & others). The Apex Court considering the other provisions of law enacted by the aforesaid Amendment Act particularly the new provisions of sub-section (6) which was added to section 158 of 1988 Act, held that after coming into force of this Amendment Act from 14.11.94 there is no period of limitation for filing claim petition in respect of motor accident. The relevant portion of paragraph 7 of the judgment is reproduced herein : “In this background, the deletion of sub-section (3) from section 166 should be given full effect so that the object of deletion 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, now the victim or the heirs of the deceased shall be in a worse position if the question of condonation of delay in filing 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 filing 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, in view of the Amending Act he became entitled to fiie 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.” 11. As-'the law on the subject has been declared by the Apex Court, the impugned order passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Tripura, Kailashahar has to be quashed. Again the impugned order disclosed that as the condonation application stands rejected the claim petition also stands dismissed as time barred. Rejecting of an application praying for award may also come within the fold of appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 12. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.5.97 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal stands set aside and quashed in exercise of power conferred under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The matter is now remitted to the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Tripura, Kailashahar who is directed to hear the matter on merit. As the matter is old one the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal is further directed to dispose of the matter at the earliest. 13. The petition stands disposed of. Send down the records along with a cqpy of this judgment immediately.