Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1424 (MP)

Ramdayal v. Kailash Lodhi

2006-12-14

ABHAY GOHIL, P.K.JAISWAL

body2006
Judgment ( 1. ) CLAIMANTS have filed this appeal under section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 25. 6. 2003 passed by First Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Ashoknagar in Claim case No. 22 of 2003, whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of claimants on the ground that it is barred by limitation. ( 2. ) IN this case the incident took place on 7. 3. 1993 and in that accident deceased pistabai died. The deceased Pistabai was the daughter of the appellants. Thereafter on 15. 11. 2002 the claimants have filed the petition under section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act. The learned Claims Tribunal considered this aspect of the matter that the claim petition has been filed after lapse of 9 years and 8 months and dismissed the claim petition placing reliance on a Division Bench decision in the case of Vinod v. Manoj, 2002 (II) Durghatna Muavja prakashika 463 and also considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhannalal v. D. P. Vijayvargiya, 1996 acj 1013 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has considered the question of limitation as the petition was pending before the Claims tribunal. Against dismissal of the claim petition, appellants have filed this appeal. ( 3. ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. ( 4. ) MR. R. P. Gupta, learned counsel for appellants placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of New India assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma, 2003 ACJ 1999 (SC), submitted that in the said case the accident took place on 18. 12. 1989 and the claimant suffered injuries in the accident and thereafter filed claim petition on 2. 11. 1995. The Claims Tribunal granted compensation and the insurance company raised the question of limitation before the supreme Court and the Supreme Court has held that in the light of the provisions of motor Vehicles Act which are being part of the beneficial legislation, the Tribunal has rightly entertained the petition and held that the claim petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation after amendment in the act of 1988 and dismissed the appeal filed by the insurance company. Therefore, his submission is that learned tribunal has committed illegality in rejecting the application filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and prayed that it be held that the claim petition is maintainable as there is no limitation after the amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act, which came into force w. e. f. 14. 11. 1994 and the award be set aside and the case be remanded back to the Claims Tribunal for decision on merits. ( 5. ) IN reply, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned award and submitted that the judgment of the apex Court in the case of C. Padma, 2003 acj 1999 (SC), is based on the analogy of a decision in the case of Dhannalal, 1996 acj 1013 (SC) and the case of Dhannalal (supra) was pending when the amendment came into force. Therefore, in that circumstance the Supreme court has held that if the cases were pending and the question of limitation was involved, the petition should not be dismissed on the ground of limitation, as during the pendency of the petition the amendment in section 166 came into force w. e. f. 14. 11. 1994. ( 6. ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as well as the law laid down by the Supreme court in the case of C. Padma, 2003 ACJ 1999 (SC ). ( 7. ) THERE is no dispute that in the case of C. Padma, 2003 ACJ 1999 (SC), the accident took place on 18. 12. 1989 and the claimants sustained bodily injuries. The claim petition was filed on 2. 11. 1995, after the amendment which came into force w. e. f. 14. 11. 1994. The same was accepted by the Claims Tribunal and after rejecting the plea of limitation raised by respondent insurance company and awarded the compensation of Rs. 45,000. The revision filed before the High Court was also dismissed and thereafter the appeal was preferred by the insurance company before the Supreme court. After considering the submissions the Supreme Court has held that a claim application cannot be dismissed on that ground. 45,000. The revision filed before the High Court was also dismissed and thereafter the appeal was preferred by the insurance company before the Supreme court. After considering the submissions the Supreme Court has held that a claim application cannot be dismissed on that ground. When sub-section (3) of section 166 has been omitted by the amendment then the Tribunal has to entertain a claim petition without taking note of the date on which such accident had taken place. The claim petition cannot be thrown out on the ground that such claim petition was 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 order to protect the interests of the victims of the accidents and their heirs if the victims die. One such amendment has been introduced in the Act by Amendment Act 54 of 1994 by substituting sub-section (6) of section 158 which was also considered and Honble Supreme court further held as under: " (12 ). . . Firstly, such an Act like the motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, if otherwise the claim is found genuine. Secondly, it is a self-contained Act which prescribes mode of filing the application, procedure to be followed and award to be made. Parliament, in its wisdom, realised the grave injustice and injury being caused to the heirs and legal representatives of the victims who suffer bodily injuries/ die in accidents, by rejecting their claim petitions at the threshold on the ground of limitation and purposely deleted subsection (3) of section 166, which provided the period of limitation for filing the claim petitions and this being the intendment of the legislature to give effective relief to the victims and the families of the motor accidents untrammelled by the technicalities of the limitation, invoking of article 137 of the Limitation Act would defeat the intendment of the legislature. " ( 8. ) THEREFORE, considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of c. Padma, 2003 ACJ 1999 (SC), we hold that the claim petition is maintainable as there was no limitation when the claim petition was filed on 15. 11. 2002. " ( 8. ) THEREFORE, considering the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of c. Padma, 2003 ACJ 1999 (SC), we hold that the claim petition is maintainable as there was no limitation when the claim petition was filed on 15. 11. 2002. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court, we allow this appeal, set aside the award dated 25. 6. 2003 passed by Claims Tribunal and remand the case to the Claims Tribunal to decide the same on merits. Parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 15. 2. 2007. Thereafter the Tribunal shall proceed to decide the claim in accordance with law. Office is directed to return the record of claims Tribunal so as to reach the Claims tribunal on or before 15. 2. 2007. ( 9. ) WITH the aforesaid direction, this appeal is allowed. In view of the above, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.