SHAIK HUSSAIN SAHEB Vs. KOGANTI SAMBRAJYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred against the order dated 13-2-1990 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Guntur in C.F.R. No.2 of 1990 in an un-numbered M.V.O.P. of 1990 filed by the appellant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act" for brevity) rejecting the same as barred by limitation.

(2.) The petitioner-appellant met with a motor accident on02-09-1985 at 12 noon and received injuries. He filed a petition under Section 140 of the Act on 02-01-1 990 claiming a sum of Rs.12,000.00 towards compensation under 'no fault liability ' with interest and costs. The petitioner filed the said petition four years four months after the date of accident. The Tribunal, on the basis of the averment s made in the petition, considered the question as to whether the un-registered petition covered by SR.No.2 of 1990 is maintainable without a separate petition for condonation of delay in preferring the claim for compensation. The petitioner contended that regarding the application for 'no fault liability' compensation under Section 92-A of the Act, no limitation has been prescribed and as he did not prefer any application under Section 110-A, the petition is maintainable under law, and there is no necessity of filing an application to condone the delay in filing the original petition. The petitioner, in support of the above contention, relied on two judgments viz., NAZIR AHMED v. KISHAN NANDLAL BHANDIA and THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD. v. N.SIMHACHALAM. The Tribunal after considering the principles laid down in the above judgments observed that they do not support the contention of the petitioner. The Tribunal further observed that as per sub-section (3) of Section 110-A of the Act no application for compensation can be entertained after a period of six months and as the wording used in the above Section is wide enough to include all the claims, including the claim under Section 92-A, the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain an application claiming compensation after the period of six months if the Tribunal is satisfied that the claimants were prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. The Tribunal also observed that had the Parliament intended that no limitation should be prescribed to a claim under Section 92-A, it would have inserted a clause in Section 92-A that the period prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 110-A has no application. It was further observed by the Tribunal that the absence of a provision in a particular enactment couldn't be construed as 'permission' and it should be construed as 'prohibition' to do it. If the claim for compensation under Section 92-A is permitted to be preferred irrespective of lapse of time, there will be no end to litigation. The Tribunal ultimately rejected the petition by holding that there is no separate petition either under Section 5 of the Limitation Act or under sub-section (3) of Section 110-A praying to condone the delay in filing the original petition.

(3.) In view of the observations made by the Tribunal and in view of the contention of the appellant-petitioner that there is no limitation for filing an application for compensation on 'no fault liability', the following is the point which arises for consideration: