New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Amanna and Others

N.P. Singh, J.—This revision application is directed against the order dated 12.8.1994 passed by the VIth Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg, in Claim Case No. 14 of 1993 whereby he allowed the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay of two years and one month in preferring the claim case for awarding compensation to the non-applicants on account of death of Surya Karayan who died in motor accident on 30.6.1991.

It may be relevant here to mention the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which read as follows:

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 12 months, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time.

It is obvious that the claim case cannot be preferred later than 12 months from the date of the accident,

The question which falls for consideration in this revision application is whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, are applicable to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Apex Court in the case of Vinod Gurudas Raikar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, , has clearly observed that delay for a longer period than six months cannot be condoned for preferring the claim case before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

The decision of the Apex Court in Vinod Gurudas Raikar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, , demonstrates that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not attracted to the Motor Vehicles Act which is a special Act.

It is well settled that the special Act overrides the provisions of general Act, therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which is a general Act, cannot override the provisions of Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

In an identical case, where an application for claim was filed jointly by a major and a minor, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Kumari Poonam and another Vs. Phool Chand and others, , has observed that Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act is a special provision which creates a bar to entertain any claim petition beyond a period of six months. The general provisions contained in Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot override the special provisions contained in Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, when the Parliament enacted the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it was well aware of the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act creating a bar to the entertainment of claim petition by the Tribunal virtually setting at naught the human component involved in it.

In the instant case, the non-applicants have admittedly preferred their claim before the Claims Tribunal after two years and one month from the date of the accident, which is beyond the period of limitation prescribed u/s 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside and in the result the revision application is allowed.