RAFIQ, J. - (1.) THESE four writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner-New India Assurance Company Ltd. against the common order dated 15/7/2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur dismissing its four applications filed for different purposes. First of these applications was filed under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for amendment and/or for framing of additional issues. Second application was filed for summoning the record of the Regional Transport Authority. Third application was filed for amendment of the written-statement and fourth application was filed for a direction to proceed ex-parte against non-claimant No.1 Jai Gopal, who was driver of the offending vehicle.
(2.) SINCE all the four petitions were directed against. the common order rejecting above referred to four applications, which were filed at the instance of the same petitioner, all these petitions were taken up together for hearing and are being now decided by this common order. Factual matrix of the case is that on 27.3.1997, one Kishori Sharan Garg died in a road accident while driving a Maruti Esteem Car. The Car driven by him collided with a truck on National Highway No.8 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur. A first information report bearing FIR No.23/97 for offence under Sections 279 and 304A IPC was registered with the Police Station Chandwaji District Jaipur clearly stating about involvement of above two and a third passenger bus. The truck bearing Registration No.HR- 10/3976 was insured with the petitioner insurance company for the period from 24.8.1996 to 23.8.1997 and the cover note was issued covering this period. Claimants in this case filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Jaipur on 24.8.2006 after more than nine years of the accident claiming a sum of Rs.181,74,80,000/-. The enormity of the claimed amount of compensation has alarmed the petitioner insurance company to contest the present matter tooth and nail which has filed above referred to four applications for different purposes. According to petitioner, it issued policy of insurance on the subject vehicle on the strength of such earlier policy issued by the National Assurance Company, which fact was duly recorded in the cover note dated 23.8.1996. It appointed Investigator Shri Hawa Singh to verify the claim and examine all the peculiar circumstances; who visited office of Regional Transport Authority at Rohtak and Sonipath in the State of Haryana so as to ascertain genuineness and authenticity of the registration certificate. He submitted an application before the Regional Transport Authority at Rohtak seeking verification of the particulars contained in the registration certificate of the vehicle from their record. The Regional Transport Authority at Rohtak returned the original application with the remark that particulars of the aforesaid vehicle were not traceable in their records and that the Regional Transport Authority at Sonipath be consulted in the matter. When he visited office of Regional Transport Authority at Sonipath, it issued particulars of Registration Certificate on 8.5.2008 indicating that no transfer of this vehicle has been made till date as per their record and that the vehicle was originally registered in their records in the name of Anjit Singh S/o Omprakash and no NOC was issued by RA/RTA for its transfer after 6.9.1990. Another reason for filing the aforesaid application before the Tribunal was that claimants were vigorously prosecuting the insurance claim on the policy of the deceased with the United Assurance Company and petitioner New India Assurance Company. The claimants also filed an application before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at New Delhi for damages caused to the car under the Consumer Protection Act, 2001. Even then the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 was filed on 4.8.2006 belatedly after lapse of 9 years and 5 months. Despite there being no prescribed limitation, the Tribunal was still required to see whether the delay was satisfactorily explained because even in absence of period of limitation, claim petition was nonetheless required to be filed within reasonable time. Third reason for the petitioner to move one of the aforesaid applications was that since the driver of the offending vehicle Jai Gopal was declared hostile in the criminal case pending against him before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate for offence under Section 304A IPC, proceedings against him in the motor accident claim case are liable to be held ex-parte notwithstanding filing of written-statement and vakaiatnama on his behalf. On the basis of the aforesaid, petitioner made yet another application with the prayer that the Regional Transport Authority Sonipath as well as Rohtak be directed to produce entire record relating to registration and transfer of offending vehicles from 6.9.1990 till the date of accident. Arguments have been canvassed for reversing and upholding the common impugned order by which aforesaid four applications were rejected, however, with a view to facilitate the disposal of these petitions in an effective manner, I deem it appropriate to deal with all the four petitions separately in the order in which such applications were considered and decided by the Tribunal. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order by which its application for amendment of the existing issues and/or for framing of additional issues, was rejected. Claimant respondents filed affidavit of the previous owner Shri Anjit Singh, who sold the vehicle in question to non-claimant Santraj Singh. Santraj Singh (owner) produced the National Permit issued in his name and also registration certificate to show that the vehicle already stood transferred in his name. He made an application to RTA on 5.6.2008 demanding ownership verification of the vehicle on which the said Authority made a remark to the effect that the Registration Certification was not available in their office however, registration of vehicle in question was transferred in the name of Santraj on the basis of National Permit granted in his name on the said vehicle which was valid from 4.6.1994 to 4.12.1999. Registration Certificate stands in the name of Santraj Singh.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has argued that though the petitioner has proposed for framing of many additional issues however the application would show that the proposed additional issues No.1 to 7 seek to deal with one important aspect, namely; where there is no period of limitation provided by the statute, namely, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whether the claim petition under Section 166 filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay of more than nine years is per se maintainable without enquiring into the reasons for the inordinate delay and if not, what is its effect? It is contended that despite omission of sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 166 of the MV Act by Amendment Act of 2001, claim petition was still required to be filed within reasonable period of time. Reliance in support of this argument has been placed on the judgment of Apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (AIR 2007 SC 2414), A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. vs. Govt. of A.P. & Ors. (AIR 2007 SC 1546) and Rand M.Trust vs. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group and others (AIR 2005 SC 894). LEARNED counsel referring to the objects and reasons of the Amendment Act of 2001 raised argument that omission of sub-section (3) was intended to take care of claimants/injured or the legal heirs of the deceased, who are ignorant about the period of limitation during which application was to be preferred in case of death of the sole bread earner of the family and in many cases, such claimants are virtually on the streets and even in cases where the victims escape death, some of such victims are hospitalized for sufficiently long time. Mere omission of the provisions of limitation does not mean that claimants can file the claim petition at any time they like and that too even after delay of ten years. Law is well settled that even when there is no time limit prescribed for approaching the court or for filing a petition/application before the court, the aggrieved party should approach the court within reasonable time or else the petition / application /claim would be liable to be rejected for delay and latches. It is contended that in para 26 of the claim, claimant made a misleading statement that the claim application was within limitation whereas fact is that there was delay of 9 years and 5 months. Petitioner has also proposed an additional Issue No.8 on the premise that non-claimants No.1 and 2 respectively in their written-statement pleaded that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car bearing No.RJ-14 1C 4788 being driven by the deceased, which collided with the Truck bearing No.HR-10 3976 due to inadvertence of a passenger bus. It is submitted that once it is known that there was contest on a factual aspect of the matter, the Tribunal ought not to have avoided framing issue on such factual contest appearing from the pleadings. It was argued that in the written statement filed by non-claimants No. 1 and 2, reference was made about involvement of third passenger vehicle and this fact was very much stated in the first information report lodged with the police also. Per contra, Shri Sagar Mal Mehta, learned Senior counsel appearing for all the non-petitioners argued that the insurance company in the present case has started raising every possible hurdles so as to delay the proceedings, which is evident from the fact that they have filed not one but four applications raising frivolous objections. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was properly amended by the Act of 1994 to do away with the provisions of limitation. There is therefore no justification for insisting that the claim petition was not filed within limitation or otherwise the delay was not satisfactorily explained. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. vs. C.Padma and another : (2003) 7 SCC 713 = RLW 2004(1) SC 13 to argue that Supreme Court in that case clarified every contingency and held that even Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply to the claims which were filed before the Tribunal under the MV Act. The Tribunal has already framed issue with regard to limitation as Issue No.3 and therefore more and additional issues touching upon the aspect of limitation could not be framed. Contention of the petitioner in this aspect was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. It was submitted that there was no question of framing an issue for dismissing the claim application on the ground of non-impleadment of driver/owner and insurer of passenger bus as respondents. Similar application for framing of additional issue was already rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 27.4.2007 and therefore another application on the same subject matter was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder has produced copy of the earlier application dated 16.6.2007 by which, it was prayed to frame additional issues. Issues proposed in that application was whether claim petition was time barred and second issue was whether the vehicle in question bearing No.HR-10/3976 was not insured with the petitioner on the date of accident i.e. 27.3.1997 and if so, what is its effect? It was argued that they were entirely different issues. On rejection of such application, it cannot be said that subsequent application would be barred. ;