9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms Tribunal rejected the plea of limitation raised by the appellant herein and awarded compensation of Rs. 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 Court dated 24th October, 1997 indicates that respondent No.2 had refused to accept the notice and the same was affixed on the door of her given address. The respondents are, therefore, not represented before us. The only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... welve 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 been omitted by Act 53 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994. The result of the Act 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 is that there is no limitation prescribed for filing claim petitions before the Tribunal in respect of any acciden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 breadearner of the family, in many cases such claimants are virtually on the streets. Even in cases where the victims escape death some of such victims are hospitalised for months if not for years. In the present case itself the applicant claims ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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-sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 claim petition is pending either before the Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. The present appeal is one such case. The appellant has been pursuing from the Tribunal to this Court. His right to get compensation in connection with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ves 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 of the appellant was filed on 15.3.1990 with a prayer for condonation of delay. The Tribunal held that in view of sub- section (3) of Section 166 of the new Motor Vehicles Act, which came into force on 1.7.1989, the delay of more than six mo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
