TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the following circumstances. In a motor accident, which took place on 18.2.1989, the respondents sustained bodily injuries. The claim petition was filed on 2.11.1995, claiming compensation of Rs.one lakh. The Claims Tribunal rejected the plea of limitation raised by the appellant herein and awarded compensation of ₹ 45,000/-. The Revision Petition, filed by the appellant, was also dismissed by the High Court on 5.12.1996. We have heard Mr. Sunil Kapoor, learned counsel for the appellant. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were put to notice. The Office Report dated 24.7.2003 disclosed that the notice was served on respondent No.1 on 14th October, 1997 by affixing notice on the door of the house of respondent No.1. A certificate of the High C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. The only difference that has been brought about in between the old Act and the new Act is that the Tribunal may entertain an application after the expiry of period of six months but not later than twelve months. In the instant case, at the time, when the respondents had filed claim petition on 2.11.1995, the situation was completely different. Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act had be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ub- section (3) of Section 166 of the Act has been omitted by Act 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 breadearne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 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, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opy thereof has also to be forwarded to the insurer concerned. 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 the said section by 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 filing the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fferent intention appears . In Dhannalal's case the reason for the deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 has been set out. It is noted that the Parliament realized the grave injustice and injury caused to heirs and legal representatives of the victims of accidents if the claim petition was rejected only on ground of limitation. Thus the different intention clearly appears and Section 6A of the General Clauses Act would not apply. Mr. Kapoor, learned counsel for the appellant, has placed reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in Vinod Gurudas Raikar vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1991 SC 2156. The facts of that case were that the appellant was injured in an accident, which took place on 22.1.1989. The claim petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
