http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4

PETITIONER:

DHANNALAL

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

D.P. VIJAYVARGIYA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/05/1996

BENCH:

SINGH N.P. (J)

BENCH:

SINGH N.P. (J)

FAIZAN UDDIN (J)

CITATION:

1996 SCC (4) 652 JT 1996 (5) 601

1996 SCALE (4)458

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

N.P. SINGH. J

Leave granted.

The appellant while going on read on 4.12.1990 became

victim of an accident, because of the rash and negligent

driving of the scooter by respondent No.1 (hereinafter

referred to as the 'respondent'). The appellant suffered

serious injuries and was admitted in Badwah Hospital, the

same day. On 7.12.1990 he was shifted to M.Y. Hospital,

Indore and was treated as an indoor patient till 27.9.1991.

Because of the accident the appellant became permanently

disabled, as his left leg above thigh and hip had been

fractured. He also lost his services as a Driver. The claim

petition for compensation was filed before the Additional

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Badwah (hereinafter referred

to as the 'Tribunal') on 7.12.1991 along with an application

for condonation of delay which was of four days only. The

Tribunal by its order dated 18.11.1993 condoned the delay in

filing the claim petition. The validity of the said order

was challenged by the respondent before the High Court of

Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The High Court by its order

dated 31.7.1995 set aside the order of the Tribunal

aforesaid condoning the delay saying that in view of sub-

section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(hereinafter referred to as the'Act') the power of

condonation by the Tribunal has been withdrawn and any claim

must be filed within the period prescribed therein. The High

Court further observed that by prescribing the fixed period

for filing the petition for claim, the intention was that

the 'sword of liability of paying compensation in respect of

accident caused by motor vehicle should not be permitted to

hover on the head of the person owning the said vehicle and

person driving such vehicle.' It was also pointed out that

the position was different under the Motor Vehicles Act,

1939 in which sub-section (3) of Section 110-A although

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4

prescribed a period of six months for filing an application

for compensation from the date of the accident, but vested

power in Tribunal to entertain such application even after

the expiry of the said period of six months, if the Tribunal

was satisfied that the claimant was prevented by sufficient

cause from making the application in time.

Sub-section (3) of Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1939 provided:

" 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 if it is

satisfied that the applicant was

prevented by sufficient cause from

making the application in time."

The Act which repealed the earlier Motor Vehicles Act

of 1939 came in force w.e.f. 1.7.1989. The new Act

prescribed a period of limitation for filing the claim

petition in sub-section (3) of Section 166. Said subsection

provided:

"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."

According to the High Court, as proviso to sub-section

(3) of Section 166 of the Act said that Claims Tribunal may

entertain the application after the expiry of the said

period of six months 'but not later than twelve months', any

application filed beyond the period of twelve months from

the date of the accident cannot he entertained as no

discretion had been left with the Tribunal to consider the

circumstances because of which the application for claim

could not be filed within the period of twelve months of the

occurrence of the accident.

Before the scope of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of

the Act is examined, it may be pointed out that the

aforesaid sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act has been

omitted by Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act,

1994 which came in force w.e.f. 14.11.1994. The effect of

the Amending Act is that w.e.f. 14.11.1994 there is no

limitation for filing claims before the Tribunal in respect

of any accident. It can be said that Parliament realised the

grave injustice and injury which was being caused to the

heirs and legal representatives of the victims who died in

accidents by rejecting their claim petitions only on ground

of limitation. It is a matter of common knowledge that

majority of the claimants for such compensation are ignorant

about the period during which such claims should be

preferred. After the death due to the accident, of the bread

earner of the family, in many cases such claimants are

virtually on the streets. Even in cases where the victims

escapes death some of such victims are hospitalized for

months if not for years. In the present. case itself the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4

applicant claims that he met with the accident on 4.12.1990

and he was being treated as an indoor patient till

27.9.1991. According to us, in its wisdom the Parliament,

rightly thought that prescribing a period of limitation and

restricting the power of Tribunal to entertain any claim

petition beyond the period of twelve months from the date of

the accident was harsh, inequitable and in many cases was

likely to cause injustice to the claimants. The present case

is a glaring example where the appellant has been deprived

by the order of the High Court from claiming the

compensation because of delay of only four days in

preferring the claim petition.

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 sub-section (3) has been deleted

retrospectively. But at the sametime, there is nothing in

the Amending Act to show that benefit of deletion of sub-

section (3) of Section 166 is not to 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. 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 in 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, he shall also within

thirty days of receipt of such

report, forward the same to such

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4

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 whereof 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 of 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 filling 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

filling 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, tn 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 upto this Court cannot be

thrown out on the ground of limitation.

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 subsection

(3) of Section 166 should be extended.

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.