CHAMAN LAL Vs. SARABJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant is in appeal against the award dated 19.11.1993, whereby the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident, as time barred.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that on 6.4.1987, the appellant along with his employer - Dr. Shamsher Singh started their journey from Khanna at about 9.00 A.M. in car No. PAN-5266. Dr. Shamsher Singh was driving the car and the appellant was sitting on the back seat. When the car reached near village Jandiala, suddenly a scooterist came in front of the car. In order to save the scooterist, Dr. Shamsher Singh lost the control of the car and hit against a bus, which was coming from the opposite direction, which was being driven rashly and negligently. Due to the accident, Dr. Shamsher Singh died at the spot, whereas the appellant received multiple injuries. He filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, which was dismissed vide impugned award.

(3.) VIDE Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1994, which came into force w.e.f. 14.11.1994, the limitation to file claim petition was done away with. Subsection (3) of Section 166 of the 1988 Act, which provided for limitation for filing of claim petition was deleted. As a result of this, the claim petition filed by the appellant in the present case on 5.4.1990 could not have been dismissed by the Tribunal by holding that the same was time barred. He further submitted that the issue came up for consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya, 1996(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 76 : 1996(3) PLR 656 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma and another, 2003(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 274 : (2003) 7 SCC 713 and a Division Bench of this Court in Darshan v. Devinder Singh and another, 2006(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 749 : 2006(3) PLR 307, wherein it was opined that even if any accident had taken place prior to the deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the 1988 Act, the claim petition even if filed thereafter would not be barred by time. It was further opined therein that in case any claim petition had earlier been dismissed as time-barred, but the proceedings were pending in any court, the same shall also be considered to be within limitation, as those claimants will not be at a worse position than a claimant who had not filed any claim petition by that time, as in terms of the amended provisions, a fresh claim petition could be filed. However, it was opined that the claim petitions, which were dismissed and the orders thereof had already attained finality, those proceedings will not be reopened.