Talamatla Sugunamma and Another vs Ch. Kanakaiah and Another

Krishna Saran Shrivastav, J.—This is an appeal against the order passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Adilabad, in C.F.R. No. 5431/1992 in Unregistered M.V.O.P. dated 17-2-1992, whereby the application of the appellants u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been dismissed as barred by limitation.

The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal, in brief, are that the husband of the 1st appellant and the father of the 2nd appellant died in a motor accident on 9-4-1990. The application for compensation on no fault basis was filed on 26-11-1991. The Tribunal rejected the application as barred by limitation on the authority of Vinod Gurudas Raikar Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, .

This order has been challenged in this appeal.

Reliance has been placed on the case of Dhannalal Vs. D.P. Vijayvargiya and Others, by the learned Counsel of the appellants.

In the case of Dhannalal (supra), the Apex Court has held that the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act have been omitted by Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which has come into force with effect from 14-11-1994. The effect of this amendment is that there is no limitation for filing claims before the Tribunal in respect of any accident. It further held that if any claimant having filed an objection beyond time which has been rejected by the Tribunal or the High Court does not challenge the same and allows such judicial order to become final, the provisions of the Amending Act shall be of no help to such claimant for the reason that the judicial order saying that such petition of claim was barred by limitation has attained finality. But the 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 the Supreme Court. In such circumstances, the benefit of the amendment of Sub-section (3) of Section 166 should be extended.

The Tribunal has dismissed the application for compensation on no fault basis on 17-2-1992 and the appeal against that order has been preferred to this Court on 15-4-1992. The aforesaid amendment has come into force with effect from 14-11-1994, that is during the pendency of the appeal and, therefore, on the principle laid down in the case of Dhannalal (2 supra), the benefit of the amendment of Sub-section (3) of Section 166 should be extended to the appellants.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Adilabad, is set aside and the case is remanded to it with a direction to register the petition and then to proceed in the matter according to law. No costs.