LexTHE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. versus C. PADMA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. L l1D. A V. C. PADMA AND ANR. SEPTEMBER 12, 2003 [S.N. VARIAVA AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] B Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 166(3) omitted by Amending Act 54 of 1994 deleting period of limitation-Accident in 1989-Claim for compensation filed in 1995-Limitation-Ejfect of omission of Section 166(3) by Amending Act-Intention of Parliament-Held, the Act is a C beneficial legislation-Parliament intended to do away with limitation by omission a/Section 166(3)-Hence, claim not barred by limitation-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 1 JO-A-Limitation Act, 1963, Article 137- General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 6A. Respondents sustained bodily injuries in a motor accident which D took place on 18.2.1989. They filed a claim petition before Claims Tribunal on 2.11.1995 claiming a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh. The Tribunal rejected the plea of limitation raised by the appellant and awarded a compensation of Rs. 45,000 to the respondents. The revision petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court. E In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the claim petition filed by the respondents was barred by limitation under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (since repealed) and that the claim petition can not be revived under the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994; F that Section 6A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that the repeal ofa provision will not affect the continuance of the enactment so repealed; and that since no limitation has been prescribed by the Legislature after the Amendment Act, Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 may be invoked to discourage stale claims leading to multiplicity of litigation for non-prescribing the period of limitation. G Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. When the respondents filed claim petition on 2.11.1995 before the Claims Tribunal, subsection (3) of Section 166 of the Motor 677 H 678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A Vehicles Act, 1988 had been omitted by Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which came into effect from 14.11.1994. The effect of the amendment is that there is no limitation for filing claim petitions before the Tribunal in respect of any accident with effect from 14.11.1994. Hence, the Tribunal was bound to entertain the claim petition without taking note of the date on which the accident took place. B [680-E, 683-G, HJ 2. Section 6A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 undoubtedly provides that the repeal of a provision will not affect the continuance of the enactment so repealed and in operation at the time of repeal. However, this is subject to 'unless a different intention appears'. In C Dhannalal's case, the reason for the deletion of subsection (3) of section 166 has been set out. Thus 'the different intention' clearly appears and Section 6A of the General Clauses Act would not apply. [684-A, BJ Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya, [1996J 4 SCC 652, relied on. D Vinod Gurudas Raikar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd, distinguished. 3. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, if otherwise the claim is found genuine. It is a self contained Act which prescribes mode of filing the application, procedure to be followed and award to be made. The E Parliament, in its wisdom, realised the grave injustice and injury being caused to the heirs and legal representatives of the victims who suffer bodily injuries/die in accidents, by rejection of their claim petition at the threshold on the ground of limitation and purposely deleted subsection (3) of Section 166, which provided the period of limitation F for filing the claim petitions and this being the intendment of the Legislature to give effective relief to the victims and the families of the motor accidents untrammelled by the technicalities of the limitation, invoking of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would defeat the intendment of the Legislature. [684-G-H, A, BJ G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5764 of 1997. From the Judgment and Order dated 5.12.96 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No. 3021 of 1996. H Sunil Kapoor for M.K. Dua for the Appellant. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. v. C. PADMA [SEMA, J.] 679 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEMA, J. : This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.12
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.