DURGAMAYA DEVI Vs. BINAY SAIKIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed challenging the legality and the validity of the order dated 10.11.95 passed by the Member MACT, Sonitpur, Tezpur in MACT Case No. 157/95 holding that: the application filed by the claimant for compensation was barred by time. I have taken up the matter for disposal at this stage as because when the matter disposed of by the learned tribunal, no notice was served on the other side and on the thresnhold of it, the claim was rejected by the tribunal holding ir. to be barred by time.

(2.) I have heard Mr. B. Banerjee learned counsel for the petitioner and he submits that in the amended Act as per S. 166 no period of limitation has been provided. The accident in this case was occured on 11-9-94 i.e. before the next Act came into force on 24.11.95,, and yet it will be governed by the provision of the now Act and in support of it, he places reliance before me a decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in 1995 (I) TA.C. 330 (Raj.) therein the Rajasthan high Court relying on the earlier decision in Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul and Others -Ys- Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri & Ors. reported in AIR 1941 Federal Court 5, it has been held as under :-

(3.) I respectfully agree with this decision and accordingly, the judgment passed by the Member, MACT, Sonitpur, Tezpur in MACT Case No. 157/95 shall stand quashed and the claim petition filed by the claimant shall be deemed to be within time and the tribunal shall proceed with the matter in accordance with rules and law by issuing notice to the other sides. This revisicon application is allowed.