O.P.Garg, J. - (1.) In these three connected writ petitions, a common question of law arises, whether the claim petitions under the provisions of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of the accidental death which had occurred on 8.2.1991 filed on 19.4.1997 can be thrown out merely on the ground that they are barred by time.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Pratima, wife of the petitioner Ravindra Kumar Kapoor and the mother of the petitioners Isha Kapoor and Nimish Kapoor lost her life in a road accident which had occurred on 8.2.1991 at 5.30 p.m. A first information report of the accident was lodged and case crime No. 71 of 1991 under sections 279/338/427 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at P.S., Govind Nagar, Kanpur. This accident gave rise to the three claim petitions aforesaid. Respondent No. 3, Arvind Kumar is the owner of the vehicle while respondent No. 2 is the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. with which the vehicle involved in the accident was insured. The three claim petitions were filed on 19.4.97. The learned Tribunal below, i.e., Vllth Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, dismissed all the three claim petitions on 8.1.1999 accepting the objection taken by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that the petitions were barred by time. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have come forward before this court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the impugned order dated 8.1.1999 be quashed and the Tribunal below be directed to decide the three claim petitions on merits.
(3.) Heard Mr. A.C. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel. The learned Tribunal below has come to the conclusion that since the accident had taken place in the year 1991, i.e., before the omission of subsection (3) of section 166 of the Act, claim petitions could not be entertained in the year 1997. In order to fortify his conclusion, learned Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jivra Khan v. Shiv Char an Das, 1999 ACJ 771 (MP). The learned counsel for the petitioners assailed and criticised the finding of the Tribunal below on the ground that it has not taken into consideration the well established proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya, 1996 ACJ 1013 (SC), as well as the subsequent decision in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ramesh Bhai C. Patel, 1997 ACJ 938 (SC). The learned standing counsel is not in a position to repel the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.;