Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 994 (RAJ)

Asha Ram v. Hukam Raj

2005-04-04

S.K.KESHOTE

body2005
Honble KESHOTE, J.–This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the award, dated 8.1.1996, of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sawaimadhopur, in Civil Misc. Case No. 41/1994. (2). In the motor vehicle accident took place on 27.8.1990, the claimant appellant sustained 13 injuries. He filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal on 16.3.1994. Along with the claim petition he filed on application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. (3). The learned Tribunal under the impugned award, dismissed the claim petition of the claimant appellant only on the ground that it is barred by limitation, hence this appeal. (4). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the appeal. (5). The learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that by Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994, sub- section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 sub Section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been repealed; the result of the repealing of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act, 1988, is that no period of limitation is prescribed for preferring the claim petition in the motor vehicle accident cases. This amendment has been made by the Parliament to save the victims of the motor vehicle accident or their heirs from grave injustice due to the rejection of the claim cases on the ground of limitation. In view of this amendment made in the Act the claimant appellant is not precluded from filing the claim petition for compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicle accident on 27.8.1990. The learned Tribunal has not considered the matter in correct perspective. (6). The learned Tribunal has committed an error to apply in the matter the provisions of Article 113 of the Limitation Act. The learned Tribunal has not considered the purpose and object of amendment of Section 166 (3) of the Act, 1988 in its correct perspective. In case with it is held by the learned Tribunal is accepted then indirectly what the Parliament has done for the benefit of the claimants, will be taken away by judicial process. The limitation for filing the claim petition was prescribed under the Act and that has been repealed, meaning thereby the Parliament has not prescribed any limitation for filing the claim petition. The limitation for filing the claim petition was prescribed under the Act and that has been repealed, meaning thereby the Parliament has not prescribed any limitation for filing the claim petition. The Motor Vehicles Act,1988 is special law and holds the fields, and the Limitation Act cannot be applied in the matter, more-so when Section 166(3) of the Act, 1988 has been repealed. The delay in filing the claim petition may have relevance only on the point of awarding the interest to the claimant appellant on the amount of compensation ultimately found payable to him or them. (7). As a result of the aforesaid discussion this appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. The award/order, dated 8.1.1996 of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawaimadhopur, in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 41/94, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned, Tribunal. The learned Tribunal is directed to restore the claim petition to its original number and decide he same on merits. (8). Both the parties are directed to present themselves before the learned Tribunal on 31.5.2005.