NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SIVAGANGAI TALUK PASUMPON THEVAR THIRUMAGANAR DISTRICT Vs. KANNAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India by the National Insurance Company against the order dated 16.4.1991 made in I.A. No. 137 of 1990 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Ramanathapuram at Madurai. The only grievance of the petitioner is that as per the provisions stood on the date of the petition filed by the first respondent/ claimant, the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay of 658 days in filing claim petition.

(2.) THE accident took place on 20.4.1988. THE first respondent herein said to have been sustained injuries filed the claim petition before the court below only on 1.10.1990. Mr.K.S. Narasimhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amended provision came into force on 1.7.1989. As per the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Vinod Gurudas Rajkar v. National Insurance Company Limited, A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 2156, the person would be covered by the new Act and the delay for a longer period than six months cannot be condoned. THE argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner may be right, but for the subsequent latest decision of the Supreme Court reported in Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayavargiva, (1996)2 C.T.C. 143. In the latest judgment referred above, the Apex Court has observed thus: "Before the scope of Sub-sec.(3) of Sec. 166 of the Act is examined, it may be pointed out that the aforesaid Sub-sec.(3) of Sec. 166 of the Act has been omitted by Sec.53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which came in force w.e.f. 14.11.1994. THE effect of the Amending Act is that w.e.f. 14.11.1994 there is no limitation for filing claims before the Tribunal in respect of any accident. It can be said that Parliament realised the grave injustice and injury which was being caused to the heirs and legal representatives of the victims who died in accidents by rejecting their claim petitions only on ground of limitation. If it is a matter of common knowledge that majority of the claimants for such compensation are ignorant about the period during which such claims should be preferred. After the death due to the accident, of the bread cancer of the family, in many cases such claimants are virtually on the streets. Even in cases where the victims escapes death some of such victims are hospitalised for months if not for years. In the present case itself the applicant claims that he met with the accident on 4. 12.1990 and he was being treated as an indoor patient till 27.9. 1991. According to us, in its wisdom the Parliament, rightly thought that pre- scribing a period of limitation and restricting the power of Tribunal to entertain any claim petition beyond the period of twelve months from the date of the accident was harsh, inequitable and in many cases was likely to cause injustice to the claimants. THE present case is a glaring example where the appellant has been deprived by the order of the High Court from claiming the compensation because of delay of only four days in preferring the claim petition. In this background, now it has to be examined as to what is the effect of omission of Sub-sec.(3) of Sec. 166 of the Act. From the Amending Act it does not appear that the said Sub-sec.(3) has been deleted retrospectively. But t the same time, there is nothing in the Amending Act to show that benefit of deletion of Sub-sec.(3) of Sec. 166 is not to be extended to pending claim petitions where a plea of limitation has been raised. THE effect of deletion of Sub-sec.(3) from Sec. 166 of the Act can be tested by an illustration. Suppose an accident had taken place two years before 14.11.1994 when Sub-sec.(3) was omitted from Sec. 166. For one reason or the other no claim petition had been filed by the victim or the heirs of the victim till 14.11.1994. Can a claim petition be not filed after 14.11.1994 in respect of such accident" whether a claim petition filed after 14.11.1994 can be rejected by the tribunal on the ground of limitation saying that the period of twelve months which had been prescribed when Sub-sec.(3) of Sec. 166 was in force having expired the right to prefer the claim petition had been extinguished and shall not be revived after deletion of Sub-sec.(3) of Sec.166 w.e.f. 14.11. 1994" According to us, the answer should be in negative. When Sub-sec.(3) of Sec. 166 has been omitted, then the tribunal has to entertain a claim petition without taking note of the date of which such accident had taken place. THE claim petitions cannot be thrown out on the ground that such claim petitions were barred by time when Sub-sec.(3) of Sec. 166 was in force. It need not be impressed that Parliament from time to time has introduced amendments in the old Act as well as in the new Act in order to protect the interest of victims of the accidents and their heirs if the victims die. One such amendment has been introduced in the Act by the aforesaid Amendment Act 54 of 1994 by substituting Sub-sec.(6) of Sec.158which provides:

(3.) HENCE the decision reported in Dhannalal v. D.P.Vijayavargiya, (1996)2 C.T.C. 143 may be confined to the condonation of delay application pending consideration either before tribunal, High Court or Supreme Court and not for any other cases. Following the said decision i.e., (1996)2 C.T.C. 143, the civil revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.