Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 359 (CAL)

Sushana Minj v. Duncon Agro Industries Ltd.

2000-07-20

HRISHIKESH BANERJI, SATYABRATA SINHA

body2000
JUDGMENT Sinha, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 8.2.96 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Court, Jalpaiguri, in M. A. C. Case No. 383 of 1991 whereby and whereunder the application for claim filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground of limitation. The fact that the accident took place on 4.8.90 and an application under Section 166 of the M. V. Act was filed on 17.12.91 is not in dispute. It is not also in dispute that the period of limitation for filing of such application is one year. Unfortunately, the appellant herein had not filed an application for condonation of delay. Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the M. V. Act, 1988 as it then stood reads thus :- "No application for such compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within 6 months of the occurrence of the accident. Provided that the claim Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of period of 6 months but not later than 12 months, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause by making the application in time." 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant, however, submits that sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the M. V. Act was repealed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994 and the application could not have been dismissed on the same ground. Having regard to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (1) Dhannalal v. D. P. Vijayvargiya and Others reported in AIR 1996 SC 2155 , we are of the opinion that the learned Counsel is correct in his submission. The aforementioned amendment was given a retrospective effect, by reason whereof there was no limitation for filing of the claim application before the Court. When the application was pending, the aforementioned Amending Act came into force. The Apex Court held : "7. 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 subsection (3) has been deleted retrospectively. But, at the same time, there is nothing in the Amending Act to show that benefit of deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166, is not be extended to pending claim petitions where a plea of limitation has been raised. From the Amending Act, it does not appear that the said subsection (3) has been deleted retrospectively. But, at the same time, there is nothing in the Amending Act to show that benefit of deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166, is not 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 8ccident? 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. 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-in-Charge 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, of such report, forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and Insurer. In view of such sub-section (6) of Section 158 of the Act, the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station is enjoined to forward a copy of information/report regarding the accident to the Tribunal having jurisdiction. A copy thereof 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 or 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 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. 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 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." 3. For the reason aforementioned, this appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal for quantification of the amount of compensation to which the appellant is entitled on the basis of the materials-on-record and in accordance with law. Such award may be passed within three weeks from the date of communication of this order. However, it would be open to the parties to raise their respective contentions on the aforementioned question before the learned Tribunal.