HEMA PANDEY Vs. SAROJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 2nd of March, 1993, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby the claim petition of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that it was beyond period of limitation.

(2.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order, it appears that the accident took place on 14th of April, 1988. The claim petition was presented on 21st of March, 1990. An objection was raised by the respondents that the claim petition of the appellant was beyond time, and therefore, the same could not be entertained.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in claim cases there is no time limit. In this regard the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance in the case reported as Dhannalal v. D. P. Vijayvargiya and Ors. , 1997 (1) MPLJ 195, 1996 JLJ 528 (Supreme Court ). The Apex Court in the above case has held that the provisions of section 166, sub-section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, deleted by Amendment Act prescribing the limitation of filing claims before the Tribunal is proper. The Apex Court also held that the Parliament in its wisdom rightly amended the provision, and as such, there is no limitation in filing a petition for claim in the accident cases. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case applies to the accidents which had occurred before amendment of section 166 of the Act referred to above. Therefore, the principles laid down in the case referred to above would apply to the facts of the present case. Similar view was expressed by this Court in the case reported as Narendra Singh v. Gulab Bai and Anr. , 1996 MPLJ 1057, 1996 JLJ 448.