MAWUBAL BEE Vs. APSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has come up for admission. A few facts are pertinent for deciding whether this appeal can be entertained. The motor accident which gave rise to the claim for this MVOP which was rejected by the tribunal occurred on 29-3-82. The petition was filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor on 18-8-89 indicating as if it is a petition filed under Section 110-A (3) of the old Motor Vehicles Act of 1939. A perusal of the order passed by the District Judge-cum-Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal indicates that neither the Advocates who appeared in the matter nor the Judge were aware of the statutory changes that were affected by the passing of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, Act 58 of 1988 which came into force on 1-7-89. Dealing with the petition as a petition under the Old Act, the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the delay of 6 years, 10 months and 20 days in filing the OP cannot be condoned and there is no justification for condonation of the exhorbitant delay. Accordingly, the Petition was dismissed. Against the order dt. 22-8-90 paised by the Tribunal dismissing the OP the present appeal is filed.

(2.) The crucial question that arises for consideration is whether the appellants -petitioners are entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 110-A (3) of the Old Act after passing of the new Motor Vehicles Act and whether an OP can be entertained in violation of Section 166 (3) of the new Act.

(3.) While the Old Act Section 110-A (3) did not provide any limitation as regards the period of delay that can be condoned by the tribunal Section 166(3) reads as follows.