MOHANSINGH SALAM Vs. DEPOT MANAGER, MPSRTC & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant/appellant calls in question the propriety of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanker in Claim Case No. 27/94 whereby the Tribunal has rejected the claim petition being barred by limitation.

(2.) The facts as undraped are that on 8.2.1989 in an accident the petitioner sustained a fracture in his left leg which caused permanent disability. Claiming compensation he filed an application on 13.7.1994. The said application was taken up on 16.11.1995 and the Tribunal on consideration of the fact that the claimant had not preferred the claim within the statutory period of limitation as has been provided under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 rejected the same. It was contended before the Tribunal on behalf of the claimant that the Sub-section (3) to Section 166 has been repealed w.e.f. 14.11.1994 and, therefore, there was no limitation for agitating a claim before the Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal did not accept the contention of the claimant and came to hold that the effect of repeal would be effective only from 14.11.1994. It has also observed that even if the repeal had the retrospective effect the grievance should have been agitated within three years and as the same has not been done it was not tenable in the eye of law. The said order passed by the Tribunal is cause of grievance of the present appellant.

(3.) Mr. J.P. Pandey learned Counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned order has contended that the Tribunal has fall into error in coming to hold that the repeal would have prospective effect. It is also put forth by the learned Counsel that while the effect of repeal totally ostracises the concept of limitation in its entirety the Tribunal without any rhyme or reason has fixed the period of limitation as three years.