(1.) ONE Appukkuttan died in a motor accident on 4.1.1987. His father, Thevan, as his dependant, filed O.P.(M.V).No.961/1996 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara on 11.2.1996 claiming compensation for death of Appukkuttan. During the pendency of the original petition, the said Thevan died. The appellants are the legal heirs of said Thevan, who are also the sisters and brothers of deceased Appukkuttan. They got themselves impleaded as the legal heirs of Thevan and prosecuted the O.P.(M.V). The Tribunal held that although after the amendment of Section 166 in 1994, there is no limitation for filing claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, since the appellants have not explained the unreasonable delay, the original petition is liable to be dismissed and consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the original petition. The award of the Tribunal is under challenge by the appellants.
(2.) THE contention of the appellants is that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. C.Padma, 2003 AIR SCW 5027, there is no limitation for filing motor accident claims and the Tribunal was bound to entertain the claim petition without taking note of the date on which the accident took place. This is opposed by the 3rd respondent-insurance company, who would rely on the decision of this Court in Chappathi Narayanan v. V.V.Koran and others, ILR 2002 (2) Ker.337.
(3.) WE are of opinion that the Tribunal has not dismissed the petition on the ground of limitation. In fact the Tribunal has stated that though petition is not barred by the law of limitation, it is bad for unreasonable delay. The Tribunal noted that the explanation offered by the appellants is that the original applicant had entrusted the matter to an advocate, who did not file the petition, since the file was misplaced. But the Tribunal found fault with the appellants for not even examining the said advocate to prove the same and not even filing an affidavit in support of the assertion.