MALTI DEVI Vs. VINOD SHANKER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The claimant-appellant Smt. Malti Devi filed M.A.C.P. No. 48 of 1986 before the M.A.C.T. Mirzapur under Section 110-Aof the Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation against the respondents for the death of her husband Dewanand Yadav on 6.1.1985 in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. Since the claim petition was filed 440 days after the date of the accident although the period of limitation prescribed under the old Act for moving a claim petition which was six months from the date of the accident, the claim petition was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. The said application was supported by affidavit of the appellant. By the impugned order the M.A.C.T. Mirzapur rejected the delay condonation application as well as the claim petition as barred by time. The instant first appeal from order has been filed by the claimant/appellant against the aforesaid order of the M.A.C.T.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that during the pendency of the appeal the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was repealed and replaced by Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 and Section 166(3) whereof which was was introduced in place of Section 110-A (3)of the 1939 Act, which also provided six months limitation for filing of claim petition. Further, Section 166(3) was omitted by Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 and after the omission of Section 166(3) there is no limitation for filing of claim petition. He submitted that in respect of pending matters also it will be deemed that there was no limitation for filing the claim petition. He submitted that the claim petition should be treated as maintainable even if it was filed beyond the period of limitation as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 110-Aof Motor Vehicles act and should be decided on merits. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhannalal v. DP. Vijayvargiya, 1996ACJ 1013(SC) in which the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: