BENCH AT JAIPUR v. Ram Lal S/o Kesra, R/o Gehlod, Tehsil And Police Station

Judgment

1. Ram Lal S/o Kesra, R/o Gehlod, Tehsil And Police Station- Piplu, District-Tonk,(Raj). Tonk. Driver And Owner Of Vehicle Mahindra Major No- Rj-03-C-0798.

2. United India Insurance Company Ltd., Through Branch Office, Near Nizam Bidi Factory, Subhash Bazar, Tonk-Raj, Insurer Company Of Vehicle Mahindra Major No-Rj-03-

0798. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4373/2024

1. Dhanni Bai W/o Nathulal Gaur, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Shubhkhara, Police Station, Baroda, Tehsil Baroda, District Sheopur(M.p.).

2. Priti D/o Nathulal Gaur, Aged About 5 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother Dhanni Bai Aged About 26 Years W/o Nathulal Gaur, R/o Village Shubhkara, Police Station Baroda, Tehsil Baroda, District Sheopur (M.p.).

3. Mohanlal Gaur S/o Shri Ratanlal Gaur, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Village Shubhkara, Police Station Baroda, Tehsil Baroda, District Sheopur (M.p.)

Rampyari Bai W/o Shri Mohanlal Gaur, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Village Shubhkara, Police Station Baroda, Tehsil Baroda, District Sheopur (M.p.) ----Appellants Versus

1. Kishan Gopal Suman S/o Shri Chhitarlal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Behind Pyareram Ji Tample, Baran, Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran (Raj). Driver Of Vehicle.

2. Mohammad Hussain S/o Shri Chhitar Khan, aged about [2025:RJ-JP:16710] (2 of 11) [CMA-4252/2024] 50 years R/o Ward No.20, Sipahiyon Ka Mohalla, Mangrol, Police Station Mangrol, Tehsil Mangrol, District Baran (Raj). (Owner Of Vehicle).

3. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Charmurti Chauraha, Kota Road, Baran, District Baran (Raj). Insurance Company Of Vehicle. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4626/2024

1. Salochana W/o Late Hawa Singh, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Muradpur, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).

2. Rajnish Kumar S/o Late Hawa Singh, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Muradpur, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).

3. Rajni Thillan D/o Late Hawa Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Muradpur, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). ----Appellants Versus

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Registered And Head Office 25/27, Aasaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002, Near Branch Office Nutan Market, Near Bus Stand, Pilani, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)-333031 (Insurance Company).

2. Vipin Dhyani S/o Biharilal, R/o Ward No. 76, Ground Floor, Ganesh Nagar, Shankarpur, New Delhi- 110092(Vehicle Owner).

3. Sanjeev Singh S/o Ranveer Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o House No. P-121, 122, Teela Shahbajpur, Police Station Shahbajpur, District Ghaziabad (U.p.) (Vehicle Driver). ----Respondents S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4810/2024 Ghisi W/o Mahaveer, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Shrinagar Nivariya, Tehsil Dooni, District Tonk (Raj.) [2025:RJ-JP:16710] (3 of 11) [CMA-4252/2024] ----Appellant Versus

1. Kamlesh Saini S/o Surajmal Mali, R/o Panwad Police Station Deoli, District Tonk (Raj.) (Driver And Owner Of Tempo No. Rj-06-Gd-0587)

2. S.B.I General Insurance Company Ltd., Office At First Floor, Dwarika Niwas, In Front Of Bmw Showroom, Kailashpuri, Near Amer Clark Hotel, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.) (Insurance Company Of Tempo No. Rj-06-Gd- 0587) ----Respondents S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4846/2024 Shankar S/o Mahaveer, Aged About 8 Years, Through His Natural Guardian Father Mahaveer S/o Mangilal R/o Village Shrinagar Nivariya, Tehsil Dooni, District Tonk (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus

1. Kamlesh Saini S/o Surajmal Mali, R/o Panwad Police Station Deoli, District Tonk (Raj.) Driver And Owner Of Tempo No. Rj06-Gd-0587.

2. S.B.I. General Insurancee Company Ltd., Office At First Floor, Dwarika Niwas, In Front Of Bmw Showroom, Kailashpuri, Near Amer Clark Hotel, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.).insurance Company Of Tempo No. Rj06-Gd-0587. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 243/2025

1. Sanju Bai Vaishnav Wife Of Shri Dinesh Vaishnav, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Nigam Office Ki Gali, Tel Factory, Baran, District Baran (Raj.).

2. Pawan Vaishnav Son Of Shri Dinesh Vaishnav, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Nigam Office Ki Gali, Tel Factory, Baran, District Baran (Raj.).

3. Vishal Vaishnav Son Of Shri Dinesh Vaishnav, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Nigam Office Ki Gali, Tel Factory, Baran, District Baran (Raj.). [2025:RJ-JP:16710] (4 of 11) [CMA-4252/2024]

4. Ram Vaishnav Son Of Shri Dinesh Vaishnav, Aged About 17 Years, Minor Through His Natural Guardian Mother Sanju Bai Vaishnav Wife Of Shri Dinesh Vaishnav, Aged 41 Years, Resident Of Nigam Office Ki Gali, Tel Factory, Baran, District Baran(Raj.).

5. Madan Lal Bairagi Son Of Shri Gangaram Bairagi, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of Nigam Office Ki Gali, Tel Factory, Baran, District Baran (Raj.).

6. Shanti Bai Vaishnav Bairagi Wife Of Shri Madan Lal Bairagi, Resident Of Nigam Office Ki Gali, Tel Factory, Baran, District Baran (Raj.). ----Appellants Versus

1. Babu Lal Meghwal Son Of Shri Mathura Lal Meghwal, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Village Kotdi (Patheda), Police Station Sadar Baran, Tehsil And District Baran (Raj.) -Driver Of Vehicle Tractor Sonalika Having Registration No.r.j.-28-R.c.-6004).

2. Mahaveer Sain Son Of Shri Babulal Sain, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village Borda Tulsa, Ward No.08, Police Station Sadar Baran, Tehsil And District Baran (Raj.) -Owner Of Vehicle Tractor Sonalika Having Registration No. R.j.-28-R.c.-6004.

3. Branch Manager, Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, Having Its Branch Officer At Anasagar Circular Road, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer, District Ajmer (Rajasthan) -Insurer Company Of Vehicle-Policy Number-60432565, Insurance Period 14-10-2022 To 13-10-2023 Mid Night. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Atul Kumar Jain Mr. Jagdish Nagar Mr. Sandeep Jain with Mr. Amit Sharma Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : [2025:RJ-JP:16710] (5 of 11) [CMA-4252/2024] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Reportable Order 19/02/2025

1. These civil misc. appeal raises common question of law, therefore, we are deciding all these appeals by a common order.

2. The appellant(s) claimant(s) have filed a petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of MV Act before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as “MACT”) for claiming compensation from respondents non-claimants for injuries/death due to accident caused by an offending vehicle of respondent(s).

3. The tribunal has rejected the claim petition(s), as it was filed beyond prescribed period of limitation under Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act (as amended).

4. Learned counsel for appellant(s) submitted that to file a claim petition, the law of limitation is not applicable and in case any period of limitation is introduced by the Parliament then, provision under Section 5 of Limitation Act is also applicable. He further submitted that since this is a beneficial litigation for innocent victims of the accident and under beneficial legislation, the court has to consider the law in favour of claimant(s). Learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial court has committed serious error while rejecting the claim petition(s) on the ground that same were filed beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the M.V. Act.

5. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon judgment in case of Akshay Raj Vs. Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Department) 2023 LIVE Law (Kerala) 50 and submitted that a [2025:RJ-JP:16710] (6 of 11) [CMA-4252/2024] claim petition filed beyond period of six months as prescribed under Section 166 (3) of MV Act cannot be dismissed by MACT in limeline. He further referred the judgment of Madras High Court in case of Thoman Daniel and Ors. Vs. Selvi and Ors. C.R.P. (MD) No. 761/2024 and submitted that a liberty is granted to the claimants to enable them to refile before the tribunal after result of the outcome to challenge made to the constitutional validity of Section 166 (3) of MV (amended) Act pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bhagirathi Dash Vs. Union of India & Anr. In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 166/2024. Learned counsel has further referred the circular dated 02.02.2024 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MVL Section) and submitted that in case a police report is filed even beyond the period of six months, then, same can be registered at any point of time and in such case, the law of limitation is not applicable.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments as referred by learned counsel for appellants.

7. Facts:- (i)S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4252/2024- Instant appeal is preferred by appellant claimant aggrieved from order dated 27.08.2024 in MAC Case no. 418/2023 passed by MACT, Tonk wherein on an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC filed by Insurance Company the claim petition was rejected as same is barred by law. As per facts, the date of accident is

06.11.2022 whereas claim petition was filed on 03.06.2023. (ii) S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4373/2024 – Instant appeal is filed aggrieved from rejection of MAC Claim Petition No. 46/2023 by learned MACT, Baran on 15.07.2024 whereby on an [2025:RJ-JP:16710] (7 of 11) [CMA-4252/2024] application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by Insurance Company, the claim petition was filed is time barred. As per facts, the accident occurred on 07.10.2019 but claim petition was filed on 02.02.2023. (iii) S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4626/2024- Instant appeal is filed against the order dated 16.08.2024 in MAC Case no. 24/2023 passed by MACT (Additional District Judge no.1), Khetri, District Jhunjhunu whereby on an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC claim petition was rejected as time barred. As per facts the accident occurred on 10.02.2022 but claim petition was filed on 10.02.2023. (iv) S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4810/2024- Instant appeal is filed by appellant claimant aggrieved from order dated

03.09.2024 in MAC Case no. 119/2023 passed by MACT Tonk whereby claim petition filed by claimant appellant was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC at the behest of Insurance Company as same is filed as time barred. (v) S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4846/2024- Instant appeal is filed aggrieved from order dated 03.09.2024 in MAC Case no. 118/2023 passed by MACT Tonk whereby on an application filed by Insurance Company under Order VII Rule 11 CPC the claim was dismissed as time barred. (vi) S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 243/2025- Instant appeal is filed aggrieved from order dated 01.10.2024 in MAC Case no. 111/2024 passed by MACT Baran whereby application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by Insurance Company was allowed and claim petition preferred by appellants claimants was dismissed as time barred. As per facts submitted by learned [2025:RJ-JP:16710] (8 of 11) [CMA-4252/2024] counsel, the date of incident is 04.10.2023 and the charge-sheet is filed on 01.04.2024 whereas certified copy was received on

08.04.2024 and courts were closed from 10.04.2025 to

14.04.2025 and a claim petition was filed on 15.04.2024. The claim was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

8. Discussions- The common question raised in these petitions are about applicability of Section 5 of Limitation Act and also generous approach while entertaining claim petition beyond the period of six months. In all matters, the MACTs have dismissed the claim petitions and claimant(s) are before us by filing a Civil Misc. Appeal(s).

9. The provision of Section 166(3) of Motor Vehicle (Amended) Act is reproduced as under: “166(3) No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident.”

10. As per Section 166(3) an application for compensation was only to be entertained, if it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident. No recourse is provided for condoning the delay in any circumstances, if a claim petition is filed beyond the period of six months. The applicability of law of limitation is also not mentioned under Section 166(3) of M.V. Act.

11. Section 159 and 166(4) of the M.V. Act provides for a mechanism other than filing of claim by claimant(s) and same are reproduced as under:

159. Information to be given regarding accident. - The police officer shall, during the investigation, prepare an accident information report to facilitate the settlement of claim in such form and manner, within three months and containing [2025:RJ-JP:16710] (9 of 11) [CMA-4252/2024] such particulars and submit the same to the Claims Tribunal and such other agency as may be prescribed. 166(4). The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under [section 159] as an application Act.][(5) compensation under Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the right of a person to claim compensation for injury in an accident shall, upon the death of the person injured, survive to his legal representatives, irrespective of whether the cause of death is relatable to or had any nexus with the injury or not.]”

12. To implement Section 159, a new rule 150-A was introduced in the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, which provides a procedure to be followed and should be in accordance with law. (Annexure-XIII).

13. Herein, all misc. appeals filed from the order(s) passed in claim petition(s) filed by claimant(s) and none of above misc. appeal is instituted or arises out of a DAR (detailed accident report) filed by police.

14. In case of Gohar Mohd. Vs. UPSRTC reported in 2022 ACJ 2771 (SC), Honble Supreme Court has held that if a claimant fails to exercise the option in terms of Section 166(i) within a period of six months, then if a report is submitted under Section 166 (4) of MV Act then same may be treated as claim application.

15. In case of Thomas Daniel (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of Madras High Court has considered judgment in case of Mala Rawan Vs. Parveen Travels Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2023) 5 CTC 47 and observed that the application shall be returned to the petitioner(s) so as to enable them to represent it before the tribunal, after outcome to challenge made to the Constitutional [2025:RJ-JP:16710] (10 of 11) [CMA-4252/2024] validity of Section 166(3) of MV Act which came into force on

01.04.2022 and challenged in case of Bhagirathi Dash (supra), and pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

16. Similarly, the judgment dated 23.01.2023 in OP (MAC) No. 8/2023 passed by the Kerala High Court on 23.01.2023 in case of Cholamada General Insurance Company Vs. Laxmi T. and Ors. (supra) is also pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein effect and operation of order dated 23.01.2023 was stayed, therefore, the counsel are not entitled to get benefit from case of Akshay Raj (supra).

17. Having gone through the facts as mentioned in above petitions, it is apparent on record that all claim petitions were filed beyond a prescribed period of six months from the date of accident and none of claim petition is filed within prescribed period of six months, from date of accident.

18. Admittedly, the law of limitation is not applicable in original proceedings, particularly when a period of limitation is introduced under Section 166(3) of MV Act, by amending the provision.

19. Moreover, no specific provision is made for applicability of law of limitation but in case, if period of six months is falling on the day of holiday then, same is extendable but in any case the time period consumed for obtaining copies of documents or delay in filing the charge-sheet, then same is not deductable or extendable under the law. The only exception is Section 166(4) of MV Act, if any DAR or accidental report is filed by police to the tribunal, then same can be treated as claim petition.

20. A very recently in case of H. Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by LRs (Civil Appeal no. [2025:RJ-JP:16710] (11 of 11) [CMA-4252/2024] 317/2025) reported as 2025 INSC 53 Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered three basic words normally considered by the Courts for allowing condonation of delay and same are “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach” and “substantial justice” and observed that these terms should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation. Further, the Bench observed that rule of limitation are based on principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No Court, should keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time.

21. In view of aforesaid, the claim petitions filed by the claimant(s) are rightly dismissed by learned MACTs and there is no perversity or illegality in the order(s) passed by the tribunal(s).

22. Thus, these civil misc. appeals sans merit and liable to be dismissed.

23. In view of discussion made hereinabove, all civil misc. appeals, filed after dismissal of MAC Petitions on ground of delay, are hereby dismissed, with pending misc. application(s), if any.

24. No order as to costs. CHETNA BEHRANI /407 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J