Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2814 (PNJ)

Jasmel Kaur v. Kulwinder Singh

2017-11-24

AVNEESH JHINGAN

body2017
JUDGMENT : AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the legal heirs of Jasbir Singh, who lost his life in a motor vehicular accident that occurred on 26.01.1992. In the said accident, truck bearing Registration No.RNJ 3777 was involved. Claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) was filed on 12.06.1992. The said claim petition was dismissed being time barred vide award dated 12.01.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short “the Tribunal”). Aggrieved of the said dismissal, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in dismissing claim petition as time barred. He contended that the limitation under the Act was done away in the year 1994 and, hence, there was no limitation to move the claim petition. 3. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that there was a limitation of six months under Section 166 (3) of the Act at the time when the accident took place and the claim petition was to be filed within the period prescribed. 4. The award passed by the Tribunal, dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the same was filed beyond period of limitation, cannot be sustained. 5. There are two aspects of the matter to be considered; firstly, that even assuming that there was a limitation of six months for filing the claim petition as per Section 166 (3) of the Act, even then the claim petition was within the period of limitation. 6. For the ready reference, amended sub-Section (3) to Section 166 reproduced below:- “(3) No application for such compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident. Provided that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of six months but not later than twelve months, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time.” 7. In the un-amended sub-Section (3), it was so stated that no application for compensation shall be entertained if it is not filed within six months of occurrence of accident. In the present case, the date of accident is 26.01.1992 and the claim petition was filed on 12th June, 1992. The same was within six months. 8. In the un-amended sub-Section (3), it was so stated that no application for compensation shall be entertained if it is not filed within six months of occurrence of accident. In the present case, the date of accident is 26.01.1992 and the claim petition was filed on 12th June, 1992. The same was within six months. 8. The Tribunal relied upon the fact that the claim petition remained pending and during its pendency, it was amended and amended petition was filed on May 24, 1995, hence, the same was time barred. The Tribunal has erred in holding petition as time barred. The limitation is only for filing the claim petition. Undisputedly, it was filed within the period of six months, it was within limitation. Any subsequent amendment made in the pending claim petition will not take it beyond the period of limitation. 9. Be that as it may, the provisions of limitation are procedural in nature and barring exceptions, these are applicable retrospectively. Section 166 of the Act was amended by Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994. With the said amendment, the limitation was done away. The claim petition could have been filed within a reasonable time. 10. In the present case, the claim petition was pending before the Tribunal and in view of the amended law, the same could not have been dismissed as time barred. 11. The said issue has been decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhannalal Versus D.P.Vijayvargiya 1996 (4) SCC 652 . The Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- “8. The matter will be different if any claimant having filed a petition for claim beyond time which has been rejected by the Tribunal or the High Court, the claimant does not challenge the same and allows the said judicial order to become final. The aforesaid Amending Act shall be of no help to such claimant. The reason being that a judicial order saying that such petition of claim was barred by limitation has attained finality. But that principle will not govern cases where the dispute as to whether petition for claim having been filed beyond the period of twelve months from the date of the accident is pending consideration either before the Tribunal, High Court or this Court. In such cases, the benefit of amendment of sub-section (3) of Section 166 should be extended. 9. But that principle will not govern cases where the dispute as to whether petition for claim having been filed beyond the period of twelve months from the date of the accident is pending consideration either before the Tribunal, High Court or this Court. In such cases, the benefit of amendment of sub-section (3) of Section 166 should be extended. 9. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court. We direct the Tribunal to entertain the petition for claim filed on behalf of the appellant and to dispose of the same as early as possible in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.” 12. In the above decision, it was held that limitation will not apply where the claim petitions, already filed, are pending and the benefit of the amendment of sub-Section (3) of Section 166 of the Act would be extended to such cases. The only exception made was that where the claim petitions have been dismissed as time barred and same have attained finality because these were not challenged, in these circumstances, the amended Act would be of no help. 13. The award dated 12.01.2000 is set aside as the claim petition is held to be within limitation. Therefore, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the quantum of compensation. 14 Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 20.12.2017.