The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK MACA No.1046 of 2024 An appeal under Section-173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. ……………… Gitanjali Dash and Anr. …. Appellants -versus- Puskar Mahapatra and Anr. …. Respondents For Appellants : Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. A. Dash, Advocate PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing:13.03.2025 & Date of Judgment: 13.03.2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Perused the tracking report. Since notice issued to respondent no.1 has been duly served, notice on Respondent No.1 is treated as sufficient. // 2 // 3. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the impugned judgment dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned District Judge- cum-1st MACT, Jagatsinghpur in MAC Case No.254 of 2021. 4. It is contended that the appellants-claimants seeking grant of compensation on account of death of their son in a road accident which took place on 02.01.2010, filed MAC Case No.254 of 2021 in the file of learned District Judge-cum-1stM.A.C.T., Jagatsinghpur. The proceeding in question was initiated U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The Tribunal initially when rejected the claim with passing of a nil award on 12.12.2023, the appellants herein challenging such order of the tribunal,
Legal Reasoning
approached this Court in MACA No.1260 of 2023. 4.1. It is contended that this Court vide judgment dated 06.05.2024 while allowing the appeal, quashed the judgment dated 12.12.2023 so passed by the Page 2 of 14 // 3 // Tribunal in MAC Case No.254 of 2021. While setting aside the same, this Court directed the learned Tribunal to dispose of the matter afresh by giving due opportunity of hearing to both the sides. 4.2. It is contended that on such remand of the matter, the Tribunal took up the issue and found that the appellants-claimants are entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.2,92,328/- on different counts. But while holding so, the claim application was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 25.09.2024 on the ground that it is time barred. 4.3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the Tribunal came to such a conclusion that the claim application is time barred inter alia on the ground that there is delay in lodging the claim petition. The tribunal on the earlier occasion relying on the amendment carried to Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 vide Amended Act, 2019 rejected the claim vide judgment dated 12.12.2023. But this Page 3 of 14 // 4 // Court after going through the relevant provision, was pleased to set aside the judgment dated 12.12.2023 vide its judgment dated 06.05.2024 in MACA No.1260 of 2023 and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. 4.4. Therefore, on the face of such order passed by this Court in MACA No.1260 of 2023, the Tribunal ought not to have held the claim of the appellants as time barred, while rejecting the application vide the impugned order dated 25.09.2024. 4.5. Learned counsel for the appellants with regard to filing of such claim application contended that initially under the provisions contained under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, no application for such compensation was entertainable unless it is made within 6 (six) months of the occurrence of the accident. However, as provided in the proviso to Section-110-A(3) of the 1939 Act, the Tribunal may entertain the application after expiry of Page 4 of 14 // 5 // 6 (six) months, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in making the application on time. 4.6. It is contended that the aforesaid provisions contained under the 1939 Act remained valid till 01.07.1989, when the MV Act, 1988 came into force. As provided under Section 166 (3) of the MV Act, 1988, similar provision was also made that no application for such compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within 6(six) months of the occurrence of the accident. However, provision was made that the Tribunal may entertain the application after expiry of the period of 6 (six) months but not later than 12 months, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for making the application in time. 4.7. It is contended that the aforesaid provisions contained under Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 remained in force till 14.11.1994, when the Page 5 of 14 // 6 // provisions contained under Section 166(3) of the Act was amended vide Amended Act, 1994. While amending, Sub-Section-3 of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, the provision regarding making of the application within 6 (six) months of the accident, was omitted and the amendment came into force w.e.f. 14.11.1994. 4.8. It is accordingly contended that in view of the amendment carried out to Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 vide the Amended Act, 1994 which came into force w.e.f. 14.11.1994, no period of limitation was prescribed for making an application under Section 166 of the Act. It is also contended that the aforesaid provision regarding filing of any claim application without having any prescribed period of limitation remained in force till Amendment was carried out to Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, vide the 2022 Amended Act which came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2022. As per the 2022 Page 6 of 14 // 7 // Amended Act, it was again provided that no application for compensation under Section 166 of the Act shall be entertained unless it is made within 6 (six) months of occurrence of the accident. 4.9. Learned counsel for the appellants accordingly contended that in view of the Amendment carried out to Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act vide the Amended Act, 1994, there was no prescribed period of limitation in making a claim application under the said provision, till the same was amended vide the 2022 Amended Act, which was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2022. It is accordingly contended that for the period from 14.11.1994 to 31.03.2022, no period of limitation was prescribed to make an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Since in the instant case the accident had taken place on 02.01.2010 and the claim application was filed on 21.12.2021, no delay can be attributed in filing the Page 7 of 14 // 8 // application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 4.10. It is accordingly contended that since no period limitation was there for filing of application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act during the period from 14.11.1994 to 31.03.2022, the view of the learned Tribunal that the claim petition is time barred is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.11. It is also contended that since the Tribunal found that the appellants are entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.2,92,328/- and the offending vehicle was also found duly insured with Respondent No.2, Respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation amount so assessed by the Tribunal, however, with interest as due and admissible. It is also contended that the Tribunal while assessing compensation at Rs.2,92,328/-, since did not allow any interest on such compensation amount, this Court may allow interest Page 8 of 14 // 9 // to be paid by the Respondent No.2 along with the compensation amount, so assessed by the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2- Company on the other hand contended that the claim application filed by the appellants was earlier rejected vide judgment dated 12.12.2023 and the same was carried to this Court in MACA No.1260 of 2023. This Court vide judgment dated 6.5.2024 though was inclined to set aside judgment dated 12.12.2023, but while setting aside the same with remand of the matter, observe that a response should be filed by the appellants indicating therein that the ground for which the claim application could not be filed for around 11 years. The finding of this Court in Paragraph-5 reads as follows: “In other words, the Court arrives at a conclusion that the learned Tribunal failed to take judicial notice of the amended Act having been introduced w.e.f. 1st April, 2022 and hence, therefore, has committed a wrong. At the same time, the conclusion of the Court is that since there is no evidence on twelve years notwithstanding absence of any such record on delay of Page 9 of 14 // 10 // limitation under Section 166(3) of M.C. Act, learned Tribunal is required to consider it with a response of the claimants appellants as to if the claim to be a live and surviving one so as to justice grant of compensation.” 5.1. It is contended that in terms of the order passed by this Court vide judgment dated 6.5.2024, no response was made by the appellants explaining the delay in not filing the application for around 11 years. The Tribunal though assessed the compensation and found that the offending vehicle has not violated any policy condition and held the Respondent No.2 liable to pay the compensation, but dismissed the application on the ground that it is time barred as there is delay in lodging the claim application and no response was filed by the appellants. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order has been rightly passed, and it requires no interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court Page 10 of 14 // 11 // finds that the claim application was filed by the claimant respondent on 21.12.2021 in respect of an accident which had taken place on 2.1.2010. It is not disputed at the bar that limitation period for filing of claim application U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicle Act by way of the 2022 amendment, was brought into effect w.e.f. 1.4.2022. 6.1. It is also not disputed at the bar that there was no period of limitation prescribed in respect of making an application U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicle Act during the period from 14.11.1994 to 31.03.2022. In the case in hand, the application was filed by the appellants on 21.12.2021 in respect of an accident, which had taken place on 02.01.2010. Since by virtue of the amendment carried to the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section-166 of the M.V. Act vide the Amended Act, 1994 was notified on 14.11.1994, there remained no period of limitation, till the new amendment was carried out by virtue of Page 11 of 14 // 12 // the Amended Act, 2022, notified on 01.04.2022. Therefore, as per the considered view of this Court, the claim application could not have been held as time barred. 6.2. Even though in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in MACA No.1260 of 2023, no response was made by the appellants explaining the delay, but in view of the provisions contained U/s.166 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, the same is not fatal and the Tribunal on the face of such statutory provision which remained in force for the period from 14.11.1994 to 31.03.2022 could not have held the application as time barred. 6.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned judgment dated judgment dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned District Judge-cum-1st MACT, Jagatsinghpur in MAC Case No.254 of 2021. While quashing the same and since the offending vehicle was having all the valid Page 12 of 14 // 13 // documents and there was no violation of any policy condition, held the Respondent No.2-company liable to pay the compensation amount so assessed by the tribunal at Rs. 2,92,328/-. Since no interest has been awarded by the Tribunal, this Court held the appellants liable to get interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of application, i.e., 21.12.2021 till its realisation. 6.4. Therefore, this Court directs respondent no.2 to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.2,92,328/- along with interest @ 6% per annum payable from the date of filing of the application till its realization before the tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On such deposit of the amount, the tribunal shall do well to disburse the same in favour of the appellants as deem fit and proper and in accordance with law. 6.5. It is further observed that if the amount of compensation along with interest as directed is not Page 13 of 14 // 14 // deposited within the aforesaid time period, compensation amount of Rs.2,92,328/- shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of expiry of the period of 8 (eight) weeks till it is deposited.
Decision
7. The MACA accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 13th of March, 2025/Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Mar-2025 15:54:46 Page 14 of 14