Bakhshish Chand vs Gian Chand and Others

Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.—This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 13.2.1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (for short "the Tribunal") whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant-petitioner has been dismissed being time barred.

The facts, in brief are that the claimant filed a claim petition u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "1988 Act") for payment of compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident which took place on 3.5.1989 in the area of village Beh Lakhan within the jurisdiction of police station Talwara. The claim petition was filed on 3.8.1991. It was pleaded that the right leg of the claimant was amputated and thus, was unable to move freely and that he had no knowledge about the limitation for filing the claim petition. It was further pleaded that Sh. V.K. Puri Advocate had agreed to file the claim petition and had obtained his signatures on various papers. It was also advised to the claimant that the appeal can be filed within three years of the accident. It was further pleaded that the claimant was informed by Shri Puri that his brief has been handed over to some Advocate at Hoshiarpur and he would be informed through post or messenger by that Advocate. It was further pleaded that as the claimant had not received any message or letter, he came to Hoshiarpur and engaged Shri R.S.Terkiana, Advocate who agreed to file the claim petition. Lastly, it was pleaded that the talks of compromise between the claimant as well as owner and driver of the offending vehicles were going on and therefore, the claim petition could not be filed within time. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents and a preliminary objection was raised that the same being barred by time was liable to be dismissed.

On the pleadings of the parties, the following preliminary issues were framed:

Whether there is sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the claim petition? OPA.

Relief.

The Tribunal adjudicated the said issue against the claimant and rejected the claim petition as barred by time.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that limitation prescribed for filing claim petition under Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of 1988 Act was omitted by Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which came into force w.e.f. 14.11.1994. Learned Counsel further submitted that by virtue of provisions of the Amended Act, no limitation existed for filing a claim petition and in view of the pendency of the present appeal in this Court, the provisions of Amended Act would be applicable. He has placed reliance on the decisions of Hon''ble Supreme Court in cases titled Dhannalal Vs. D.P. Vijayvargiya and Others, and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Bhai C. Patel and Others, in support of his submission. Learned Counsel, thus, prayed that the judgment of the Tribunal be set aside and the matter be remitted to decide the claim petition afresh expeditiously in accordance with law. Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, however, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The Apex Court in Dhannalal''s case and Ramesh Bhai''s case (supra) while considering the effect of deletion of Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the 1988 Act held that where a claim petition was filed while the said provision was operative but on 14.11.1994 when the Amended Act became operative and the proceedings were pending at any stage, the claim petition could not be thrown out on the ground of limitation. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to entertain the petition for compensation filed by the claimant and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.