BALKU MAHLI Vs. MAHABIR PRASAD TIBREWAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accident in question occurred on 6.4.1987, at a point of time when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was in force. The claim application was filed on 15.11.1989, a point of time when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had come into force. Even though, Sub -section (3) of Section 110 -A of 1939 Act provided a limitation period of six months from the date of occurrence of accident for filing a claim petition, it also simultaneously provided that the Claims Tribunal should have the jurisdiction to entertain the application even after the period of six months, if it was satisfied that the applicant was prevented by a sufficient cause from making the application in time. Sub -section (3) of Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is reproduced hereunder. This reads thus : - -

(2.) What is noticeable therefore is that the proviso did not contain any restriction on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in extending the period of limitation or in condoning the delay for any period. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, even though, of course also provided for and prescribed the limitation period of six months and also contained a provision for condonation of delay, but this condonation provision was materially different (in the new Act) as compared to the old 1939 Act in as much as under the new Act a restriction was imposed that if the claim petition was filed more than one year after the date of occurrence of the accident the delay could not be condoned. This was contained in Sub -section (3) of Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Sub -section (3) reads thus : - -

(3.) In the case of Vinod Gurudas Raikar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., reported in , their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering the vital differences with respect to the applicability of Sub -section (3) of Section 110 -A of the 1939 Act and Sub -section (3) of Section 166 of the 1988 Act observed as under : - -