[MV Act] Gauhati HC Sets Aside MACT Order Which Dismissed Claim For Being Barred U/S 166(3), Says Accident Occured Before Section Was Inserted

The Gauhati High Court recently set aside an order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup by which it dismissed a claim petition filed after six months of the accident for being barred by limitation under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended in 2019), on the ground that the amendment to Section 166 of the Act, which includes the insertion of sub-section (3), was to come into effect only from April 1, 2022.The single-judge bench comprising Justice Budi Habung observed:“In light of the legal position established in the aforementioned cases, and considering that the accident occurred on 03.5.2019, prior to the enforcement of the amendment inserting sub-section (3) to section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, I am of the opinion that the learned Tribunal made erroneous interpretation of Section 166(3) of the MV Act, 1988, under incorrect belief that the amendment was enforced on 19.8.2019.”The case of the appellant was that on May 03, 2019 at about 5:10 PM, while the appellant-claimant was speaking in front of the shop of one Late Bhabesh Kalita, he was knocked down by the offending vehicle due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. The appellant filed a case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup (Tribunal) seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in the accident.The Tribunal vide its order dated November 07, 2020 dismissed the petition by holding that the accident occurred on May 03, 2019, but the claimant has filed the claim petition on November 11, 2019, which is after six months of the accident. The Tribunal held that as per section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended upto date), no application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident. Thus, the Tribunal held that the claim petition is barred by limitation and dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appeallant filed an appeal before the High Court on the following grounds: the accident took place on May 3, 2019, when the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 had not yet been enacted and enforced. the Motor Vehicle (amendment) Act, 2019, is prospective and not retrospective in nature. The Court noted that Section 166(3) of the MV Act (as amended) states that no application shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the accident's occurrence. It was observed by the Court that the key question for consideration is whether the Tribunal was correct in concluding that the claim petition was barred by limitation due to the amendment to Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988, which includes the insertion of sub-section 3. “…….the amendment to section 166, which includes the insertion of sub-section (3), was to come into effect only from April 1, 2022, as specified in the aforementioned Notification from the relevant Ministry dated February 25, 2022,” the Court noted.Thus, the Court noted that the Tribunal made an erroneous interpretation of Section 166(3) of the MV Act, 1988, under incorrect belief that the amendment was enforced on August 19, 2019. Accordingly the Court set aside the impugned order and restored back the claim petition to the Tribunal for necessary orders. Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 95Case Title: Md. Tibul Choudhury v. The Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & 2 Ors.Case No.: MACApp./30/2021Click Here To Read/Download Order

[MV Act] Gauhati HC Sets Aside MACT Order Which Dismissed Claim For Being Barred U/S 166(3), Says Accident Occured Before Section Was Inserted

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags