9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 2. Applicability of limitation period u/s 110A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 3. Retrospective operation of procedural law changes. Summary: Jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal: The primary issue was whether an application for compensation filed u/s 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, arising from an accident occurring more than 60 days before the constitution of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, could be entertained by the Tribunal or if the remedy was to institute a civil suit. The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted as soon as the Claims Tribunal is constituted, and the filing of the application before the Tribunal is the only remedy available to the claimant. Applicability of Limitation Period u/s 110A(3): The Court examined the limitation period of 60 days for filing an application u/s 110A(3) and concluded that the bar of limitation does not operate in relation to an application for compensation arising out of an accident which occurred prior to the constitution of the Claims Tribunal. The Court reasoned that time for filing the application did not start running before the constitution of the Tribunal. The delay in filing the application due to the non-existence of the Tribunal could not be condoned under the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 110A. However, the Court held that the time taken in approaching the Tribunal after its constitution could be considered reasonable or the delay could be condoned under the proviso. Retrospective Operation of Procedural Law Changes: The Court emphasized that the change in law was merely a change of forum, i.e., a change of procedural law and not substantive law. It is a well-established proposition that such a change operates retrospectively. The Court stated that the expressions "arising out of an accident" and "over the area in which the accident occurred" in section 110A indicate that the change of forum was meant to be operative retrospectively, irrespective of when the accident occurred. The Court also noted that the underlying principle of the change was to provide a cheaper remedy to claimants by approaching the Claims Tribunal. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondents' remedy was to go before the Claims Tribunal. The time taken in approaching the Tribunal after its constitution was either reasonable or the delay could be condoned under the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 110A. The appeal was dismissed with costs to respondents 1, 2, and 3.
|
