NIRANJAN SAHU Vs. MONU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the order dtd. 3/2/2020, passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (for short 'the Tribunal') in unregistered claim case, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim holding it to be barred by time.

(2.) Facts of the case are that on 12/7/2019, deceased Devendra Sahu was returning from village Narmada, while he reached near Bhola Dhaba, a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No. CG 08 AH 9617 (for short 'the offending vehicle'), rashly and negligently driven by Respondent No.1, dashed him due to that he sustained grievous injuries on his head. During course of treatment, he died. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. On 31/1/2020, the Appellants/claimants preferred the claim petition before the Tribunal along with an application for condonation of delay. The aforesaid claim was dismissed by the Tribunal holding it to be barred by time as it was instituted beyond the prescribed period of 6 months from the date of occurrence of the accident as provided under Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 166 of the Principal Act, which was inserted by virtue of Sec. 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act').

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/Claimants submits that since the accident was taken place on 12/7/2019 prior to the Amendment Act when the relevant provision of the Principal Act was in force, where no time period was prescribed, the proceeding as initiated before the Tribunal, therefore, must have been governed by the provisions made in the said Principal Act and the claim could not have been held to be barred by time by taking recourse to the said provisions as inserted by the said Amendment Act. He further submits that although the said Amendment Act has come into force w.e.f. 1/9/2019, but the provisions of Sec. 53 of it proposing to amend the said provision in Sec. 166 of the Principal Act were not notified by the Central Government as required under Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 1 of the said Amendment Act, therefore, application for condonation of delay is neither required, nor the claim could have been dismissed on the point of limitation, therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed a serious illegality in dismissing the claim Petition by holding it to be barred by time. A reliance has been placed in the judgment passed by this Court in M.A.(C) No.605/2020 (Mukesh Patle Vs. Shailendra Verma and ors.) passed on 20/1/2021.