BALAKRISHNAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these cases a common question arises for consideration. Petitioners in the Original Petitions and appellant in the M. F. A. were claimants before various Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals. They filed applications for compensation under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. All the applications were dismissed by the Tribunals stating that they were barred by law of limitation. Applications were dismissed on the basis of statutory provision, which is extracted below:

(2.) In the Writ Petitions, petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the above mentioned provision. They sought for a declaration that the proviso to sub-s.(3) of S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59/88) in so far as it takes away the powers of the Claims Tribunals under the Act, to entertain application for compensation submitted beyond the period of one year from the date of occurrence of the accident, is unconstitutional. Learned Single Judge referred all these Writ Petitions to a Bench by a reference order dated 23.7.1992.

(3.) When the matter came up for hearing, counsel for the petitioner in O. P. No. 4450 of 1992, Shri. George Sebastian, pointed out that the above provision was subsequently deleted from the statute book by Act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994. In view of the said circumstance, we need not go into the constitutional validity of the said provision. However, the question which remains to be considered is whether the applications preferred before the coming into force of Act 54 of 1994, by which S.166(3) was deleted, could be considered by the Tribunal since no time limit has been prescribed for preferring applications under S.166 of the Act, after the amendment which was effected by Act 54 of 1994.