- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THESE three writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner -The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., being aggrieved by the order dated 4.11.2000 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara allowing the claim petition No. 178/2000 (74/99) (Smt. Motiya W/o Rama Meena v. Shyamlal Banjara), and claim petition No. 184/2000 (18/99), Smt. Bhaguti W/o Surajmal Meena v. Shyamlal Banjara. So far as civil writ petition No. 1980/2001 is concerned, the same is directed against the order dated 19.5.2000 passed by learned MACT, Bhilwara in Claim Petition No. 363/97, Mst. Sangari and Ors. v. Shyamlal, whereby, the learned Tribunal was pleased to reject the applications of the petitioner -Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. filed under Article 113 and 137 of the Limitation Act contending therein that the claim petitions filed by the claimants on 21.8.1997 in respect of accident, which took place on 30.1.993, was time barred by four years and seven months. Therefore, the claim petitions could not be entertained on merits. After rejection of said applications on 4.11.2000, in claim petition No. 178/2000 (74/99), Smt. Motiya W/o Rama Meena v. Shyamlal Banjara, and claim petition No. 184/2000 (18/99), Smt. Bhaguti W/o Surajmal Meena v. Shyamlal Banjara, award for 'no fault liability ' was passed by the learned Tribunal on 2.2.2001. Learned Counsel for the respondent -claimants also informed the Court that since there is no stay in the present writ petitions in favour of petitioner Insurance Company, the award stands executed and amount of compensation has been paid to the claimants. He further submitted that the controversy is long res Integra in view of Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Man Singh v. Gamer Rebari & Anr., reported in 2001 ACJ 1641, which was rendered following the Apex Court judgment in the case of Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya & Ors., reported in 1996 ACJ 1013. In the said case of Man Singh (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held as under: "9. After making the aforesaid observations, the Hon 'ble Apex Court held that in its wisdom Parliament rightly thought that prescribing a period of limitation and restricting the power of Tribunal to entertain any claim petition beyond the period of limitation was harsh, inequitable and in many cases was likely to cause injustice to the claimants, therefore, the sub -section was omitted from the statute. 13. The Motor Vehicles Act is a special statute in which earlier, there was a provision of limitation under Section 166 of the Act. Once that has been omitted from the statute, then in our considered opinion, the learned Tribunal was wholly in error in applying the general law of limitation under the Limitation Act. If the view, taken by the learned Tribunal is upheld, then the very purpose of Parliament in deleting the provisions of Section 166(3) of the Act from the statute would stand totally frustrated. 18. In view of Dhannalal 'scase, 1996 ACJ 1013 (SC), His Lordship further held that the benefit of Amending Act must also be extended to pending cases where the plea of limitation has been raised."
(3.) IN view of this settled legal position, the impugned orders of learned Tribunal dated 4.11.2000 and 19.5.2000, rejecting petitioner - Insurance Company 'sapplications that claim petitions were barred by limitation, is not required to be interfered with in the present writ petitions.;