Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2132 (PNJ)

Dharup Singh v. Varinder Kohli etc.

2008-12-16

SABINA

body2008
JUDGMENT Sabina, J.:-This is an appeal filed against the award dated 17.5.1993 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal). 2. Claimant had filed the claim petition claiming compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicle accident. The said claim petition, vide the impugned award, was dismissed being time barred. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. Claimant-Dharup Singh filed the claim petition in September, 1992 and the same was decided vide impugned award on 17.5.1993. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his claim petition, claimant filed the present appeal in this Court. Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was omitted by the Amending Act with effect from 14.11.1994. Since the appeal of the claimant was pending on the day, the Amending Act came into force, the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be allowed. After the Amending Act came into force with effect from 14.11.1994, there is no limitation for filing claim petition before the Tribunal in respect of any accident. Since the appeal filed by the appellant was pending, when the Amending Act came into force, the benefit of amendment of Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act is liable to be extended to the appellant. It has been held by the Apex Court in Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya and others AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2155 (1) which is as under:- “ 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. 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. 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 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 of such report, forward the some 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 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. 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 up to this Court cannot be thrown out on the ground of limitation” 5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The impugned award is set aside. Since the claim petition was not disposed of on merits, the same is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 19.1.2009. --------------------