JAGIR KAUR Vs. ZORA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 13.2.1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellants has been dismissed being time barred.

(2.) THE facts, in brief are that the claimants i.e. the widow and daughter of Hakam Singh filed a claim petition claiming compensation for the death of said Hakam Singh who had been travelling by a truck on 21.9.1989 and died on account of injuries sustained by him when the said truck over-turned. Since the claim petition was filed on 19.7.1990 i.e. after expiry of period permissible in law, an application filed for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition was also filed. It was stated regarding belated filing of the claim petition that on account of death of Hakam Singh in the aforesaid accident, the claimants remained mentally disturbed and were thus unable to contact their counsel for the purpose of filing the claim petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that limitation prescribed for filing claim petition under sub-section (3) of Section 166 of 1988 Act was omitted by Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which came into force w.e.f. 14.11.1994. Learned counsel further submitted that by virtue of provisions of the Amended Act, no limitation existed for filing a claim petition and in view of the pendency of the present appeal in this Court, the provisions of Amended Act would be applicable. He has placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases titled Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya and others, 1996(3) RCR(Civil) 76 (SC) : AIR 1996 SC 2155 and New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Ramesh Bhai C. Patel and others, 1997 ACJ 938 in support of his submission. Learned counsel, thus, prayed that the judgment of the Tribunal be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Tribunal to decide the claim petition on merits expeditiously in accordance with law. Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, however, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.