PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. KESAVAN KUTTY NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner suffered injuries in a road traffic accident which took place on 29.8.1987. Petition claiming compensation was filed in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trivandrum on 23.8.1990. Along with the claim petition, I.A. 486 of 1990 was filed for condoning the delay of 2 years 5 months and 24 days in filing the claim petition. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed the application on finding that as per S.166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 the Tribunal had no power to condone the delay beyond a period of one year. Ext. P3 is the copy of the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, in the inter locutory application which is under challenge.

(2.) On 14.11.1994 sub clause.(3) of S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was omitted. The question which arises for consideration is the effect of deletion of sub clause.(3) of S.166 from the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988. At the time when Ext. P3 order was made, the above sub clause was there in the Act and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed the application for condoning the delay in the light of what is stated in the above sub clause of S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) In Vinod Gurudas v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. ( 1992 (1) KLT 338 ) it was held by the Supreme Court that when a claim petition is filed after the repeal of the old Act in respect of an accident which took place when the old Act was in force, the question of condonation of delay will be governed by the new Act. Sub clause.(3) of S.166 of the Act provides that no application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident. The proviso states that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of six months but not later than twelve months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. It is in the light of what is stated in the proviso that the Claims Tribunal observed that the Tribunal had no power to condone the delay beyond one year from the date of accident.