No Motor Accident Claim Should Be Dismissed As Time-Barred : Supreme Court's Interim Order In Plea Challenging S.166(3) MV Act

The Supreme Court passed an interim order directing the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and High Courts to not dismiss any motor accident compensation petition as time-barred.The Court passed this order while hearing a petition challenging Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which prescribes a 6-month limitaiton period from the date of the accident to file a claim petition. This provision was added by the 2019 amendment. A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria noted that several petitions have been filed challenging this amendment. In view of the fact that any order passed by this bench would have bearing on all such petitions, the Court directed that the hearings may be expedited. The Court has now asked the parties to complete the pleadings and re-listed the matter on November 25. Till then, no such petitions should be dismissed as time-barred claims.The Court's order recorded :" This court has been informed that there are a number of petitions across the country filed on the same issue and any finding recorded by this Court would have bearing on the pending petitions. In that view of the matter, the hearing of these matters requires to be expedited It is made clear that during the pendency of these petitions, the tribunal or the High Courts shall not dismiss the claim petitions on the ground of such petitions as barred by limitation as prescribed under sub-Section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988."The Court has given two weeks for the parties to complete pleadings, failing which they will lose their right to file pleadings.The order has been passed in the petition filed by a practising advocate, who has challenged the constitutionality of the provision, arguing that the impugned amendment is not only arbitrary but also violates the fundamental rights of the road accident victims.The provision, which took effect on April 1, 2022, has been challenged on the grounds that it curtails the rights of road accident victims by imposing a strict six-month limitation period for filing claim applications. It has been further argued that putting such a cap on filing the claim application undermines the object of this benevolent statute, which is intended to provide benefits to victims of road accidents."Declare the amendment w.e.f, 1.4.2022 in view of the Government Notification is arbitrary, ultra-vires and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India and deserves to be set aside," the petition stated.It may also be noted that the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 was amended by the 1988 Act, whereby a claim petition was to be filed within six months. However, by way of the amendment in 1994, the time limit was removed for filing a claim petition regarding an accident that occurred at any time. The legislature, with the introduction of Act 32 of 2019, which came into effect on 1.04.2022, brought back the old provisions of 166(3), restricted the entertainment of the compensation application unless it is made within six months from the occurrence of the accident. For ready reference, Section 166 (3) reads as:"(3) No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident."The petitioner has also challenged the impugned amendment because the legislation did not consider any opinion or refer to any law commission report or parliamentary debate behind it. In addition, the effective stakeholders were not consulted during the process."The objection and reason behind such amendment is completely silent in the fact and circumstances of the present case, which is one of the most relevant aspect before enacting any new statutory provision or any amendment to the existing provision of a Statute. Hence, this present Writ Petition is in order to protect the interest of the road users and accident victims suffered in view of Motor Vehicles in public place," the petition added.In view of this, it has been submitted that the impugned regulation is "unreasoned, arbitrary and irrational" and violates the fundamental rights of the road accident victims. Notice on this petition was issued later year in April.Appearance: Senior Advocate Jay Savla, assisted by Renuka Sahu, AORCase Details: BHAGIRATHI DASH v UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.|W.P.(C) No. 166/2024Click here to read the order

No Motor Accident Claim Should Be Dismissed As Time-Barred : Supreme Court's Interim Order In Plea Challenging S.166(3) MV Act

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

No Motor Accident Claim Should Be Dismissed As Time-Barred : Supreme Court's Interim Order In Plea Challenging S.166(3) MV Act

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers