NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus SMT. SHANTI MISRA, ADULT

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 266 · Decided: 10-10-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 8 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
266 
NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
v. 
SMT. SHANTI MISRA, ADULT 
October 10, 1975 
(A. ALAGUUSWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.J 
Motor Vehicle Act (4 of 1939), ss. llOA to HOF-Limitation in case o/ 
accidem before constitution of Tribunal and application for compensation filed 
beyond 2 months of the constitution of the Tribunal. 
Section 110,A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 before its amendment in 
1970, provided that no application for compensation arising out of an accident 
of the nature spedfied in s. 110 (1) shall be entertained by the Claims Tribunal 
unless it is made within 60 days of the occurrence of the accident. Under its 
proviso, the Claims Tribunal has power to excuse any delay 
in filing 
the 
application if it was satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause. 
S. 11 OF bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, as soon as the Claims Tribunal 
is constituted. 
As a result of an accident in September, 1966, the husband cif the respondent 
died. 
The limitation for filing a suit is 2 years from the date of accident under 
Art. 82. Limitation Act. 1963. 
On 18th March, 1967, the State Government 
constituted the Claims Tribunail 
under s. 110. The respondent filed an 
application for compensation on July 8, 1967. The Tribunal and the High 
Court held that the Tribunal conld entertain the application. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Cou.rt, 
HELD : (1) The change in law effected by the introduction of ss. llOA 
to 110F in 1956 was only a ,change of forum, that is, a change of adjectival 
or procedural law and not of su1Ystantive law. 
Such a ,change of law operates 
retrospectively and the person has to go to the new forum even if his cause 
of action or right of action accrued prior to the change of forum, because, 
though he has a vested right of action, he has no vested right of forum. The 
expressions "arising out of an accident" occurring in s. 11 OA ( 1) and "over 
the area in which the accident occurred" in s. 110A(2), and the absence of 
express words making the new forum avaifable only to causes of action arising 
after the creation of the Tribunal, show that the change of forum was mcan,t 
to operate retrospectively irrespective of when the aceident occurred. [270E-G] 
(2) The underlying principle of the change of law was to enable the 
claimants to have a cheap remedy of approaching the Claims Tribunals on 
payment of a nominal court-fee instead of an ad valorem 
amount in the 
Civil Court. Pending suits are not to be affected, but the Legislature wanted 
the cheap remedy to be available as soon as a Tribunal was constituted by 
the State Governments, in all cases, irrespective of the date of the accident, 
provided the remedy of going to the court was not barred on the date of 
the constitution of' the Tribunal.. [271C-E] 
(3) Therefore, if the accident had occurred within 60 days prior fo the 
constitution of the Tribunal then it could be said that an application to the 
Tribunal was the only remedy. 
If such an application could not be made 
within 60 days, then the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay under 
the proviso. 
But if the accident occurred more than 60 days before the cons-
titution of the Tribunal, it could be contended either, (a) that such a case 
will be a fit one where the Tribunal would be able to condone the delay under 
the proviso. But if the accident occurred more than 60 days before fhe cons-
to entertain such an application and the remedy of going to the Civil Court 
in such a situation was not barred under s. llOF. [270H-271B] 
( 4) Since the change of forum is retrospective it could not be contended 
that recourse to suit would still be available under the old law of limitation. 
[273B-CJ 
( ..
• 
' 
, 
I 
NEW INDIA INSURANCE V. 
SI~ANTI MISRA 
267 
(5) But, taking recourse to the proviso to s. uqA(3) for exci.:si~g !he 
delay in applying to the Tribunal is not correct. Sec!lon 5 of the Lmutatton 
Act 1963 or the proviso to s. 110A(3) of the Act, are meant to condone 
the' default of the party on the ground of sufficient cause. But if a p~rty is 
not' able to file an application for no fault of his, but because the Tnbunal 
was not in existence, it will not be a case where it can be said that the 
applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making t~e application in 
time within the me~ning of the prnviso. However, the application would not 
be barred under s. 110A(3), because, (a) though time had s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.