LAWS(KER)-2022-8-314

BIJU MATHEW Vs. SURAJ MON K. SHAJI

Decided On August 24, 2022
BIJU MATHEW Appellant
V/S
Suraj Mon K. Shaji Respondents

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 10/12/2021 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.) Prior to the amendment caused in the Motor Vehicles Act, the provisions dealing with no fault liability and entertainment of claim petitions under Sec. 92A and Sec. 110A of 1939 Act, was in existence. The aforementioned Act has been amended by Motor Vehicles Act in 1988 and the claim petition was to be filed within a period of six months. Prior to aforementioned amendment in 1994, 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 reintroduction of the provision which was in vogue at the time when Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was promulgated, but there was no amendment in Sec. 217 dealing with repealing and savings clause.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the accident in the present case had occurred on 10/12/2021. At the relevant point of time, statutory right was available, claimant was entitled to file the claim petition untrammeled by any period of limitation. But, in the amendment aforementioned by Act 32 of 2019 effective from 1/4/2022, the right has been taken away resulting into the impugned order dtd. 17/6/2022 whereby the application for compensation filed on the same date has been dismissed being barred by law of limitation. The objection qua limitation, a mixed question of fact and law, can be decided only when the parties are made to lead evidence by framing the issues. The petition should not have been rejected summarily.