Ashpurn Singh v. Shambhu Ram) DATED & Ors.

Learned counsel Mr.Roshanlal appearing for the appellant has contended with reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhannalal Vs. D.P.Vijayvargiya and others : AIR 1996 SC 2155 that in view of the amendment brought about w.e.f. 14.11.1994 to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deleting sub-section (3) of Section 166, limitation is not prescribed for filing claim application for compensation on account of a vehicular accident; and in view of the law laid down in Dhannalal's case, the present case being pending before this Court, deserves to be decided on merits. Learned counsel Mr.B.K.Bhatnagar appearing for the respondents 3 attempted to support the impugned award with reference to the decision in Vinod Gurudas Raikar's case (supra). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of opinion that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhannalal's case (supra), deletion of sub- section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act appertains to the benefit of appellant-claimant in the present case too as the matter is pending consideration before this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the benefit of amendment of sub-section (3) of Section 166 applies to the cases where the matter is pending either before the Tribunal or before the High Court or before the Supreme Court. The present appeal having been admitted on

16.07.1993 and having remained pending before this Court, there is no reason to deny the benefit of amendment to sub- section (3) of Section 166 to the petitioner and, therefore, the claim application deserves to be considered on merits. As noticed above, on the very date of framing of issues, the Tribunal proceeded to dispose of the claim application and no evidence has been recorded in this matter and, therefore, there is no material before this Court to arrive at any finding on other issues involved in the case on the question of negligence and so also on the quantum of compensation. In this view of the matter, though the case is an old one, the same is required to be remanded to the 4 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barmer for trial and disposal in accordance with law. As a result of the aforesaid, this appeal succeeds to the extent indicated above; the impugned award dated