- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The claimant-appellant Smt. Malti Devi filed M.A.C.P. No. 48 of 1986 before the M.A.C.T. Mirzapur under Section 110-Aof the Motor Vehicles Act claiming Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation against the respondents for the death of her husband Dewanand Yadav on 6.1.1985 in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. Since the claim petition was filed 440 days after the date of the accident although the period of limitation prescribed under the old Act for moving a claim petition which was six months from the date of the accident, the claim petition was accompanied with an application for condonation of delay. The said application was supported by affidavit of the appellant. By the impugned order the M.A.C.T. Mirzapur rejected the delay condonation application as well as the claim petition as barred by time. The instant first appeal from order has been filed by the claimant/appellant against the aforesaid order of the M.A.C.T.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that during the pendency of the appeal the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was repealed and replaced by Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 and Section 166(3) whereof which was was introduced in place of Section 110-A (3)of the 1939 Act, which also provided six months limitation for filing of claim petition. Further, Section 166(3) was omitted by Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 and after the omission of Section 166(3) there is no limitation for filing of claim petition. He submitted that in respect of pending matters also it will be deemed that there was no limitation for filing the claim petition. He submitted that the claim petition should be treated as maintainable even if it was filed beyond the period of limitation as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 110-Aof Motor Vehicles act and should be decided on merits. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhannalal v. DP. Vijayvargiya, 1996ACJ 1013(SC) in which the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: "In this background, now it has to be examined as to what is the effect of omission of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act. From the Amending Act, it does not appear that the said sub-section (3) has been deleted retrospectively. But at the same time, there is nothing in the amending Act to show that benefit of deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 is not to be extended to pending claim petitions where a plea of limitation has been raised. The effect of deletion of sub-section (3) from Section 166 of the Act can be tested by an illustration. Suppose, an accident had taken place two years before 14.11.1994 when sub-section (3) was omitted from Section 166. For one reason or the other no claim petition had been filed by the victim of the heirs of the victim till 14.11.1994. Can a claim petition be not filed after 14.11.1994 in respect of such accident? Whether a claim petition filed after 14.11.1994 can be rejected by the Tribunal on the ground of limitation saying that the period of twelve months which had been prescribed when sub-section (3) of Section 166 was in force having expired the right to prefer the claim petition had been extinguished and shall not be revived after deletion of subsection (3) of Section 166 w.e.f. 14.11.1994. According to us, the answer should be in negative. When sub-section (3) of Section 166 has been omitted, then the Tribunal has to entertain a claim petition without taking note of the date on which such accident had taken place. The claim petitions cannot be thrown out on the ground that such claim petitions were barred by time when sub-section (3) of Section 166 was in force. It need not be impressed that parliament from time to time has introduced amendments in the Old Act as well as in the new Act in order to protect the interest of victims die. One such amendment has been introduce in the Act by the aforesaid Amendment act 54 of 1994 by substituting sub-section (6) of Section 158 which provides: 'As soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this section is completed by police officer, the officer in- charge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of recording of information or, as the case may be, on completion of such report of the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer, and where a copy is made available to the owner, he shall also within thirty days on receipt of such report forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and insurer. In view of sub-section (6) of Section 158 of the Act the officer in- charge of the police station is enjoined to forward a copy of information/report regarding the accident to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction. A copy thereof has also to be forwarded to the concerned insurer. It also requires that where a copy is made available to the owner of the vehicle, he shall within thirty days of receipt of such copy forward the same to the Claims Tribunal and insurer. In this background, the deletion of sub-section (3) from Section 166 should be given full effect so that the object of deletion of said section by Parliament is not defeated. If a victim of the accident or heirs of the deceased victim can prefer the claim for compensation although not being preferred earlier because of the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed, how the victim of the heirs of the deceased shall be in a worse position if the question of condonation of delay in filing the claim petition is pending either before the Tribunal, High Court or the Supreme Court. The present appeal is one such case. The appellant has been pursuing from Tribunal to his Court. His right to get compensation in connection with the accident in question is being resisted by the respondent on the ground of delay in filing the same\ If he had not filed any petition for claim till 14.11.1994 in respect of the accident which took place on 4.12.1990, in view of the amending Act he became entitled to file such claim petition, the period of limitation having been deleted, the claim petition which has been filed and is being pursued up to this court cannot be thrown out on the ground of limitation.";