SATHY Vs. DILEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Inter alia alleges that the objection qua limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. The claim petition in respect of an accident occurred on 23/5/2019 could not have been rejected summarily by taking the aid of amendment caused in Sec. 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 substituted by Act 32 of 2019 made effective from 1/4/2022 as the said amendment would have a prospective effect. Otherwise with the stroke of the amendment the right available to the injured and the claimants of the deceased person would be taken away.

(2.) Sri.Lal George accepts notice for the third respondent, the contesting respondent and submits that nothing has been saved under repealing and savings clause under Sec. 217 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus the order is perfectly legal and justified.

(3.) Prior to the amendment caused in the Motor Vehicles Act, Act 1939 was in existence dealing with the provisions of providing no fault liability and entertainment of claim petitions under Sec. 92A and Sec. 110A of 1939 Act. The aforementioned Act was amended by Motor Vehicles Act in 1988 and the claim petition was to be filed within a period of six months. The aforementioned amendment by way of amendment in 1994 prescribed no limitation to file claim petitions in respect of the accident occurred at any point of time. Legislature in its wisdom introduced the Act of 32 of 2019 effective from 1/4/2022 by bringing back the old provisions of 166(3) restricting the entertainment of the application for compensation unless it is made within a period of six months from the occurrence of the accident. While causing the amendment and reintroducing the provision which was in vogue at the time when Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was promulgated, there was no amendment in Sec. 217 dealing with repealing and savings clause.