) ---------- Babeya Dora and another … v. Dharinidhar Nayak and another
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 21-May-2024 19:04:17 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.423 of 2023 (From the judgment dated 27th March 2023 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge-cum-3rd M.A.C.T., Bhubaneswar in M.A.C. Case No.113 of 2012) ---------- Babeya Dora and another …… Appellants Versus Dharinidhar Nayak and another …... Respondents Advocate(s) appeared in this case :- For Appellants For Respondents : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr.P.K.Mishra, Advocate Mr.M.R.Mishra, Advocate for Respondent No.1 Mr.S.K.Sarangi, Advocate for Respondent No.2 CORAM : JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 15th May 2024 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Present appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment dated 27th March 2023 of 2nd Additional District Judge-cum-3rd MACT, Bhubaneswar passed in M.A.C. Case No.113 of 2012, wherein the claim MACA No.423 of 2023 Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 21-May-2024 19:04:17 application was dismissed on the ground of limitation without granting any compensation. 2. Heard Mr.P.K.Mishra, learned counsel for Appellants and Mr.S.K.Sarangi, learned counsel for the Insurer-Respondent No.2 as well as Mr.M.K.Mishra, learned counsel for Respondent No.1. The accident took place on 21st February 1994 and the claim 3. application was filed on 6th July 2012. The M.V. Amendment Act 1994 came into force on 14th November 1994 by deleting sub-section 3 of Section 166 of the M.V.Act. Prior to its deletion, sub-section 3 of Section 166 was read as under: “166(3); No application for such compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident. the the claim that Provided application after the expiry of the said period of six months but not later than 12 months, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time.” tribunal may entertain 4. A bare reading of aforesaid provision reveals that a claim application, prior to coming into force Amendment Act, 1994 could be filed within a period of six months from the date of accident without any limitation and for next six months subject to satisfaction of the Court on prevalence of sufficient cause for not filing the application within first six months. 5. Now coming to the facts of the present case, the accident took place on 21st February 1994 and adding six months, the date would be MACA No.423 of 2023 Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 21-May-2024 19:04:17 21st August 1994 without counting any limitation. But further six months time was available to the claimants to present the claim application subject to satisfaction on the question of limitation, i.e. about sufficient cause preventing him from making the application. Therefore, it was open for the claimant to present the claim application on or before 20th February 1995, had the amended provision (1994) not brought into to force. When the amended provision came into force on 14th November 1994 deleting the provisions counting limitation under Section 166(3), then the question of limitation in presenting the claim application did not exist after 14th November 1994. So the option was open for the claimant to present the claim application at any time after 14th November 1994 without any bar of limitation. 6. The Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vrs. C.Padma and another, 2004 (1) T.A.C. 10 (S.C.), analyzing the effect of omission of sub-section 3 of Section 166, have observed as follows: “10. The ratio in Dhannalal’s case laid down (supra), applies with full force to the facts of the present case. When the claim petition was filed sub-section (3) of Section 166 had been omitted. Thus, the Tribunal was bound to entertain the claim petition without taking note of the date on which the accident took place. Faced with this situation, Mr Kapoor submitted that Dhannalal case does not consider Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act and therefore, needs to be reconsidered. We are unable to accept the submission. Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act, undoubtedly, provides that the repeal of a provision will not affect the continuance of the enactment so repealed and in operation at the time of repeal. However, this is subject to “unless a different intention appears”. In Dhannalal case the reason for the deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 has been set out. It is noted that Parliament realized the grave MACA No.423 of 2023 Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 21-May-2024 19:04:17 injury caused legal injustice and representatives of the victims of accidents if the claim petition was rejected only on the ground of limitation. Thus “the different intention” clearly appears and Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act would not apply. to heirs and xxx xxx xxx 12. The learned counsel for the appellant, next contended that since no period of limitation has been prescribed by the legislature, Article 137 of the Limitation Act may be invoked, otherwise, according to him, stale claims would be encouraged leading to multiplicity of litigation for non-prescribing the period of limitation. We are unable to countenance the contention of the appellant for more than one reason. Firstly, such an Act like the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, if otherwise the claim is found genuine. Secondly, it is a self-contained Act which prescribes mode of filing the application, procedure to be followed and award to be made. The Parliament, in its wisdom, realised the grave injustice and injury being caused to the heirs and legal representatives of the victims who suffer bodily injuries/die in accidents, by rejecting their claim petitions at the threshold on the ground of limitation, and purposely deleted sub-section (3) of Section 166, which provided the period of limitation for filing the claim petitions and this being the intendment of the legislature to give effective relief to the victims and the families of the motor accidents untrammeled by the technicalities of the limitation, invoking of Article 137 of the Limitation Act would defeat the intendment of the legislature. 13. In the result, we do not find any infirmity in the order under challenge, which would warrant our interference. This appeal, being devoid of merits, is, accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.” In the afore-cited case, the accident took place on 18th February 7. 1989 and the claim application was filed on 2nd November 1995. MACA No.423 of 2023 Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: CHITTA RANJAN BISWAL Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 21-May-2024 19:04:17 8. In the case at hand, the observation of the tribunal to reject the claim application on the ground of limitation, after deletion of sub- section 3 of Section 166, is held bad in the eye of law. On this score, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that he was not the owner of the offending vehicle on the date of accident and therefore should be deleted from the array of the parties. 10. Since the matter is remitted back to the tribunal for decision afresh on merit, present Respondent No.1 is at liberty to raise all his contentions before the tribunal. 11.
Decision
In the result, the impugned judgment dated 27th March 2023 is set aside and the MAC Case No.113 of 2012 is remanded back to the tribunal i.e. 2nd Additional District Judge-cum-3rd MACT, Bhubaneswar for decision afresh in accordance with law on merits of the claim application. Since this appears to be a year old matter, learned tribunal shall do well to dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 12. The appeal is disposed of. (B.P.Routray) Judge C.R.Biswal/Secy. MACA No.423 of 2023 Page 5 of 5