DHANNALAL versus D.P. VIJAYVARGIYA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 417 · Decided: 07-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

DHANNALAL 
v. 
D.P. VIJAYVARGIYA AND ORS. 
MAY 7, 1996 
[N.P. SINGH AND FAIZAN UDDIN, J.J.j 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 166(3). 
Claim petition-filed beyond presc1ibed poiod of limitation with ap-
plication for condonation of dela)-Period of limitation deleted dwing pen-
dency of petition-Amending Act-'--Application of-To pending petition,.._ 
Held : claimant was entitl_ed lo benefit of amended provision-Howeve1; 
amended Act would not apply to petition filed beyond limitation poiod and 
rejected and the claimant had allowed the same to become final--Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 110-A(J). 
The appellant while going on road became victim of an accident, 
because of the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by res·pondent. The 
appellant suffered serious injuries and was ad1nitted in Hospital, the same 
day. Due to the accident the appellant became permanently disabled, as 
his left leg abrive thigh and hip had been fractured. He also lost his 
employment as a Driver. The claim petition for compensation \\-'as filed 
before the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal along with an 
application for condonation of delay which was of four days only. The 
Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the claim petition. The validity of the 
said order was challenged by the respondent before the High Court. The 
High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal aforesaid condoning the 
delay saying that in view of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 
the power of condonation by the Tribunal had been withdrawn and any 
claim must he filed within the period prescribed therein. Being aggrieved, 
the appellant preferred the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD : 1.1. Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been 
omitted by Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Am.endment) Act, 1994 which 
came into 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 H 
417 
418 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A in respect of any accident. It can be said that Parliament realised the grave 
·~· 
B 
injustice and injury which was being caused to the heirs and legal repre-
sentatives 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 
escape death some of such victims are hospitalised for months if not for 
years. Parliament rightly thought that prescribing a period of limitation 
and restricting the power of Tribunal to entertain any claim petition 
C 
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. [421-A-E] 
1.2. From the Amending Act it does not appear that the said sub· 
D 
section (3) has been deleted retrospectively. But at the same time, there is 
nothing in the Amending Act to show that benefit of deletion of sub-section 
(3) of Section 166 is not to be extending to pending claim petitions where 
a plea of limitation has been raised. 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, 
E 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. (421-F, 422-C] 
2.1. In view of sub-section (6) of Section 158 of the Act the officer 
F 
incharge of the police station is enjoined to forward a copy of informa, 
!ion/report regarding the accident to the Tribunal having jurisdiction. A 
copy thereof has also to be forwarded to the cuncerµed insurer. It also 
requires that where a copy is made available to the owner of 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·sec· 
G lion (3) from Section 166 should be given full effect so that the object of 
deletion of said section by the Parliament is nut defeated. (422-G] 
2.2. The matter will be different if any claimant having f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.