MER RAMDE VEJANANDBHAI Vs. HARSHADBHAI PARBATBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does the proviso to sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 restrict/limit the power of the Claims Tribunal to condone the delay caused in filing application for compensation to a period of 12 months from the date of occurrence of accident ? Does the proviso exclude expressly or otherwise the application of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or principle underlying said Sec. 5 to an application for condonation of delay caused in filing the application for compensation ? These are the twin questions posed for consideration in these petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) These two petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against the judgment and order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Porbandar, dated 18/07/1991 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 57 and 60 of 1991 respectively. By the said impugned judgment and order the Tribunal has rejected the applications of the petitioner in each case on the ground that such petition is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and since it is filed beyond six months after expiry of prescribed period of six months, the Tribunal has no authority in law to condone the delay. In Special Civil Application No. 5806 of 1991 the accident in question took place on 8/02/1990 and the petitioner (original claimant) sustained injuries. The Motor Accident Claim Petition is filed on 1-4-1991. Since the petition for compensation was filed beyond prescribed period of limitation and the same was not numbered and application of condonation of delay was numbered as Miscellaneous Claim Petition No. 561 of 1991.

(3.) In Special Civil Application No. 5807 of 1991 the accident in question took place on 8-2-1990 and the Motor Accident Claim Petition came to be filed on 9-4-1991. Since the petition was filed beyond period of one year application for condonation of delay was registered as Miscellaneous Claim Petition No. 560 of 1991.