Orissa High Court
The Manager (Legal) vs Subash Pradhan on 6 January, 2025
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024
In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, 1950
***
The Manager (Legal)
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.
At: Dharmanagar, Berhampur
District: Ganjam,
Represented through
Legal Executive ... Petitioner
(Respondent No.2 before
the learned Tribunal).
-VERSUS-
1. Subash Pradhan
Aged about 46 years
Son of Dina Pradhan
Resident of Village: Haridamula
P.O.: Shyamsundarpur
P.S.: Khallikote
District: Ganjam, Odisha
(Claimant-petitioner before
the learned Tribunal)
2. A. Sangram Patra
Aged about 47 years
Son of A. Ganesh Patra @ Ganesh Patra
Residing At: Gurapalli, P.O.: Bhejpur
P.S.: Khallikote, District: Ganjam
(Respondent No.1 before
the learned Tribunal)
… Opposite parties.
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 1 of 42
Counsel appeared for the parties:
For the Petitioner : M/s. Anupam Dash,
Subham Sharma,
Arpit Sarangi, AdvocatesFor the Opposite party : M/s. Suryakanta Dwibedi,
No.1 R.K. Mahanta, S.S. Dash,
K.M. Hati, AdvocatesP R E S E N T:
HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMANDate of Hearing : 06.01.2025 :: Date of Order : 06.01.2025
O RDER
Challenge is laid against the Order dated 06.05.2024
(Annexure-3) passed in M.A.C. Case No.02 of 2022,
wherein question of maintainability of the application
of the present opposite party No.1, namely, Subash
Pradhan, for compensation filed under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being raised, the same
has been rejected by the learned Additional District
Judge-cum-9th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Khallikote, Ganjam. The petitioner-Shriram General
Insurance Company Ltd., has approached this Court
by way of this writ petition invoking extraordinary
jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India with the following prayer(s):
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 2 of 42
“Under the facts and circumstances as narrated above,
this Hon‟ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue
notice to the opposite parties and after hearing the
parties be pleased to quash the order dated 06.05.2024
passed by the learned 9th MACT-cum-Additional District
Judge, Khallikote under Annexure-3 and allow the
petition filed by the petitioner-Insurance Company
under Annexure-2 and pass any other order/orders, as
may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in
duty bound ever pray.”
Facts as narrated in the writ petition:
2. The claim case, i.e., M.A.C. Case No.02 of 2022 has
been filed on 29.11.2022 under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (“MV Act” for short) before the
Court of learned Additional District Judge-cum-9th
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Khallikote, Ganjam
(“MACT”, for convenience) by the present opposite
party No.1, namely, Subash Pradhan for grant of
compensation to tune of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of
injury sustained in a road accident caused by a Truck
(Goods Carrier) bearing Registration No.OR-07U-8708
on 19.11.2021 at 6.00 P.M. near village Haridamula
under Khallikote Police Station.
2.1. The opposite party No.2-the owner of the said vehicle
was impleaded as respondent No.1 and the present
petitioner-Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 3 of 42
as respondent No.2, before the learned MACT. The
claim application has been contested by the
respondent No.2-present petitioner raising issue of
maintainability with prayer to dismiss the said claim
petition/application on the ground that accident being
occurred on 19.11.2021 and the opposite party No.1
having filed claim case, i.e., M.A.C. No.02 of 2022, on
29.11.2022, which is after the period of six months of
occurrence. The delay in filing could not be condoned
in view of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019.
The petition raising maintainability at the behest of
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. has been
dismissed vide order dated 06.05.2024 by the learned
MACT with the following order:
“The case record is posted today for hearing of the
petition filed by the respondent No.2 in which the
respondent No.2 has challenged the maintainability of
the petition on the ground of limitation. Counsels for
both the parties are present. Copy served. Heard.
Perused the case record.
During course of the hearing of the petition, the learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the
alleged accident took place on dated 19.11.2021
whereas the petitioner has filed the claim petition on
dated 29.11.2022, i.e., after lapse of 354 days. He also
submitted that the provisions of Section 166(3) of the
M.V. Act clearly speaks that the claim petition has to be
filed within a span of 06 months from the alleged
accident and accordingly the present claim petition is
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 4 of 42
having no merit and is not maintainable in the eye of
law on the ground of limitation.
On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that in view of the amendment the M.V. Act,
the claim application in respect of the accident which
arises/occurs after the date of the amendment has to
be filed within the period of limitation, i.e., six months,
but in the present case the accident took place on dated
19.11.2021, i.e., much prior to the amendment and
such amendment is not also retrospective in nature.
That apart, he has submitted that there are sufficient
and good grounds on the part of the petitioner to
succeed in the matter and hence in the interest of
justice, the petition filed by the respondent No.2
challenging the maintainability of the claim petition is
liable to be rejected.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.1 submitted to pass any order as per
law and he did not file any objection in the matter.
On perusal of the case record it is found that the alleged
accident in respect of which the claim petition has been
filed took place on 19.11.2021 and in respect of the
said incident, Khallikote P.S. Case No.722 dated
28.11.2021 was registered u/s.279/337/338 of IPC
and after completion of investigation charge sheet
bearing No.741 of 2021 dated 29.12.2021 has been
filed under Section 279/337/338 of IPC.
That apart, in view of the settled principles of law, this
court is of the opinion that any amendment in law
operates prospectively, unless there is a clear provision
to the effect that the amendment is retrospective inW.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 5 of 42
nature. Moreover, the intention of legislature behind the
enactment of the provision under Section 166 of MV Act
as well as the corresponding law is to provide
necessary compensation to the victims of the road
traffic accidents and the said enactment is a benevolent
legislation.
Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of this
case, submissions of the counsels by giving regards to
the settled principles of law, the petition at hand has
got no merit to stand and is accordingly disposed of
being rejected.
Put up the case record on dated 11.05.2024 in the
National Lok Adalat for conciliation and further order.
Intimate the parties accordingly.”
2.2. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 06.05.2024
passed in M.A.C. Case No.02 of 2022 by the learned
MACT, the petitioner has approached this Court by
way of this writ petition.
Hearing:
3. Heard Sri Anupam Dash, learned Advocate for the
petitioner and Sri Suryakanta Dwibedi, learned
Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Rival contentions and submissions:
4. Sri Anupam Dash, learned counsel represented the
opposite party No.1, namely, Subash Pradhan,
claimant, and submitted that while going to his village,
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 6 of 42
the claimant met with an accident caused by the
vehicle mentioned above at Haridamula Village under
Khallikote Police Station on 19.11.2021 at about 6.00
P.M. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver.
The opposite party No.1 filed M.A.C. Case No.02 of
2022 before the learned Tribunal on 29.11.2022 for
grant of compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.
4.1. He further submitted that the incident occurred on
19.11.2021 and M.A.C. Case No.02 of 2022 was filed
on 29.11.2022, which was conspicuously beyond the
period of six months, i.e., around 354 days. Such
inordinate delay in absence of provisions contained in
Section 166 as amended by the Motor Vehicles
(Amendment) Act, 2019 could not be ignored/omitted.
Section 53 ibid. inserting sub-section (3) in Section
166 of the MV Act, 1988, came into force with effect
from 01.04.2022 by virtue of Ministry of Road
Transport and Highways Notification No. F.No. RT-
11036/ 64/2019-MVL [SO 859(E)], dated 25.02.2022
(published in Gazette of India No.829, dated
25.02.2022) specified “No application for
compensation shall be entertained unless it is made
within six months of the occurrence of the accident”.
Relying on Section 166(3) of the MV Act, 1988 as so
amended learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contended that the claim petition, being not filed
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 7 of 42
within a period of six months from the date of
accident, the claims application could not have been
entertained and the petition raising maintainability
should have been allowed. Essentially, Sri Anupam
Dash, the learned counsel vehemently contended that,
the claim petition of the opposite party No.1 was
barred by limitation under Section 166(3) as inserted
by Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, which
received assent of the President on 9th August, 2019,
and as such it is liable to be dismissed.
4.2. It is fervently urged that the impugned Order, being
devoid of plausible reasons, is liable to be set aside.
5. Sri Suryakanta Dwibedi, learned counsel appearing for
the opposite party No.1 relying on the decisions of the
various Courts, viz., Md. Tibul Choudhury Vrs. The
Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Case
No. MACApp./30/2021, disposed of on 12.12.2024 by
the Gauhati High Court, Mangal Batra Vrs. Mohammad
Rafeeq Visayati, W.P.(C) No.22096 of 2022, disposed of
on 10.08.2022 by the Allahabad High Court, Shanmathi
Vrs. Ravi, C.R.P. No.2451 of 2023, disposed of on
19.07.2023 by the Madras High Court, Thomas Daniel
Vrs. Selvi, C.R.P. No.761 of 2024, disposed of on
02.04.2024 by the Madras High Court and Malaravan
Vrs. Praveen Travels Private Limited, C.R.P. No.2558 of
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 8 of 42
2023, disposed of on 18.08.2023 by the Madras High
Court, would submit that the claim petition, being
bona fide, has rightly been entertained.
5.1. Appearing for opposite party No.1, the learned Counsel
vehemently contended that although Section 166 of
the MV Act, 1988 was amended in the year 2019 and
received the assent of the President, the effective date
for enforcement of the MV (Amendment) Act, 2019 was
notified on 25.02.2022, by virtue of which said
Amendment Act came into force with effect from
01.04.2022. Therefore, the claim petition, being
entertained for good reasons, the order impugned in
the writ petition warrants no intervention.
Consideration and conclusion:
6. Considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing in the matter and on perusal of the
record, this Court finds the fact that the accident
occurred on 19.11.2021 and the opposite party No.1
filed M.A.C. Case No.02 of 2022 on 29.11.2022,
seeking compensation from the respondents, which
are undisputed.
6.1. Relevant portion of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment)
Act, 2019, reads thus:
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 9 of 42
“The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019
No. 32 of 2019
[9th August, 2019]***
1. Short title and commencement.–
(1) This Act may be called THE MOTOR VEHICLES
(AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019.
(2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central
Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, appoint and different dates may be
appointed for different provisions of this Act and
any reference in any such provision to the
commencement of this Act shall be construed as a
reference to the coming into force of that provision.
***
53. Amendment of section 166.–
In section 166 of the principal Act,–
(i) in sub-section (1), after the proviso, the
following proviso shall be inserted, namely:–
„Provided further that where a person
accepts compensation under section 164 in
accordance with the procedure provided
under Section 149, his claims petition before
the Claims Tribunal shall lapse.‟
(ii) in sub-section (2), the proviso shall be
omitted;
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 10 of 42
(iii) after sub-section (2), the following sub-
section shall be inserted, namely:–
‘(3) No application for compensation
shall be entertained unless it is
made within six months of the
occurrence of the accident.’.
(iv) in sub-section (4), for the words, brackets
and figures „sub-section (6) of Section 158‟,
the word and figures „Section 159‟ shall be
substituted;
(v) after sub-section (4), the following sub-
section shall be inserted, namely:–
„(5) 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.‟.”
6.2. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways brought out
the following notification in exercise of power under
Section 1(2) of aforesaid Amendment Act, 2019:
“Ministry of Road Transport and Highways
1Notification1 Published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary [PART II– Section 3-– Sub-
section (ii)] issue No.829, dated 25.02.2022.
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 11 of 42
New Delhi,
the 25th February, 2022S.O. 859(E).–In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Motor Vehicles
(Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019), the Central
Government hereby appoints the 1st day of April, 2022
as the date on which the following provisions of the
said Act shall come into force, namely:–
Sl. No. Sections
*** ***
4. Section 53
*** ***
[F. No. RT-11036/64/2019-MVL]
AMIT VARADAN,
Jt. Secy."
6.3. It is stated at the Bar that different High Courts have
consistently held in such circumstances that the claim
application would not be hit by limitation specified in
sub-section (3) of Section 166, as inserted with effect
from 01.04.2022.
6.4. Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in the case
of Thomas Daniel Vrs. Selvi, CRP(MD) No.761 of 2024,
vide Order dated 02.04.2024, has made the following
observations:
“5. It is, no doubt, true that prior to 01.04.2022, there
was no limitation for filing claims seeking
compensation for injury or death arising out of theW.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 12 of 42
use of the motor vehicle. Clause (3) of Section 166
of the Act, which was introduced by the Motor
Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, provides that a
claim for such compensation must be filed before
the Tribunal within six months from the date of
accident.
6. It is brought to notice that the Constitutional
Validity of the said amendment has been
challenged before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of
India in Bhagirathi Dash Vrs. Union of India in
W.P. (Civil) No. 166 of 2024 in which notice has
been ordered on 01.04.2024 to the Respondent
therein.
***
8. Inasmuch as the accident in the instant case has
taken place prior to 01.04.2022, it is incumbent
upon the Tribunal to examine as to whether the
statutory dispensation referred supra has been
followed by the police authorities and if so, the
Petitioners would obviously be entitled to its
benefits.
9. In such circumstances, the impugned proceedings
shall be returned to the Petitioners so as to enable
them to re-present it before the Tribunal so as to
examine the matter afresh in terms of the dictum
laid down by this Court in Malaravan Vrs. Praveen
Travels Pvt. Ltd., (2023) 5 CTC 47. Any decision
taken by the Tribunal would be certainly subject
to the result of the outcome of the challenge made
to the Constitutional Validity of Section 166(3) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, introduced withW.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 13 of 42
effect from 01.04.2022, pending in the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of India in Bhagirathi Dash Vrs.
Union of India in W.P. (Civil) No. 166 of 2024, and
the ultimate outcome of the Special Leave Petition
against the judgment of the Kerala High Court in
Vimala Jose Vrs. Aboobacker and two others in
O.P.(MAC) No.136 of 2022 dated 02.12.2022 and
Akshay Raj Vrs. Ministry of Law and Justice
Legislative Department rep. By the Secretary, IV
Floor, A Wing, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi in O.P.
(MAC) No.6 of 2023 dated 23.01.2023, regarding
the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963, to such claims.”
6.5. In Ranju Begum Vrs. Shahjahan Ali, CRP No.172 of
2019, vide Order dated 03.03.2021, 2021:GAU-AS:
3420, the Gauhati High Court laid down as follows:
“7. Therefore, when it has been expressly provided
under Sub-Section (2) of Section 1 of the amending
Act of 2019 that the Central Govt. may appoint
different dates for different provisions of the said
Act to come into force, the learned Tribunal had
erred in law to apply the provision Section 5(1)(b)
of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and to deem that
Section 53 of the amending Act of 2019 which
contained amendment to the provision of Section
166 of the MV Act had come into operation on the
date when it received assent of the President.
8. It is seen that as sections 50 to 57 of the
amending Act of 2019 are not yet notified, the
petitioners can still prefer an application under
Section 140 and/or under Section 163-A of the MV
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 14 of 42
Act, as the case may be, Thus, the provisions of
Section 140, 163A and 166 of the MV Act, as it
stood before its amendment vide amending Act of
2019 (Act 32 of 2019) would continue to operate
with full vigour till such time Section 50 to 57 of
the amending Act of 2019 is notified in the Official
Gazette.
***
10. It may be mentioned that the respondent No.2 has
referred to the case of Vinod Gurudas Raikar Vrs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd, AIR 1991 SC 2156:
(1991) 4 SCC 333, where the Supreme Court of
India had refused to condone the delay in filing
claim petition. The said ratio is not found
applicable because in the said case, it was held
that once the MV Act, 1988 had come into force,
there was no merit in the application filed for
condonation of delay and therefore, it was held in
the said case that the benefit of a repealed law
could not be availed. From the facts as narrated
herein before the facts of the cited case is totally
distinguishable.
In the present case in hand, the provisions of
Section 53 of the amending Act of 2019 has not
been notified and had not come into force, as
such, the provisions of Section 166 of the MV Act,
as it stood before amending Act of 2019 had been
enacted and received the assent of the President
would continue to prevail.
11. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to hold that the
petitioners have been able to make out a case that
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 15 of 42
the rejection of their claim petition by the learned
Tribunal was ex facie erroneous. Accordingly, the
Court has no hesitation to set aside and quash the
impugned order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the
learned Member, MACT, Barpeta in MAC Case
No.157 of 2019. Accordingly, the claim petition
filed by the petitioners, being MAC Case No.157 of
2019 stands restored to file before the said
learned Tribunal. The said learned Tribunal shall
proceed with the claim petition of the petitioners in
accordance with law.”
6.6. In Gohar Mohammed Vrs. Uttar Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation, (2022) 9 SCR 43 it has been
observed thus:
“29. As per the Rules, in the event of a road accident,
the investigation must be started immediately on
receipt of information by the police officer of the
police station concerned. The Investigating Officer
shall inspect site of accident, take photographs/
videos of scene and vehicle involved, followed by
preparation of site plan drawn to scale as to
indicate the width of road(s) as the case may be
and other relevant factors including the persons
and vehicles involved in the accident. In a case of
injury, the Investigating Officer shall take
photographs of the injured in the hospital and
shall conduct spot enquiry examining the
eyewitnesses/bystanders. The intimation
regarding the accident is required to be furnished
by Investigating Officer within 48 hours to the
Claims Tribunal in the shape of First Accident
Report (FAR) in Form-I. It is further required to be
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 16 of 42
sent to the Nodal Officer of the insurance company
on having particulars of the insurance policy. The
injured/victim(s), legal representative(s), State
Legal Services Authority, insurer shall also be
provided the copy of Form-I and the same must be
uploaded on the website of the State Police, if
available.
30. It would be the duty of the Investigating Officer to
inform the injured/victim(s)/legal representative(s)
regarding their rights by supplying Form-II
attaching flow chart within 10 days specifying the
scheme to seek remedial measure. It would be the
duty of the Investigating Officer to ask the
information in Form-III and Form-IV from the
driver(s) and the owner(s) respectively within 30
days. As per the new regime, on receiving the
information, Interim Accident Report (IAR) shall be
submitted by the Investigating Officer to the
Claims Tribunal within 50 days in Form V along
with relevant documents. A copy of the said IAR
shall be furnished to the insurance company of the
motor vehicle(s) involved in the road accident,
victim(s)/claimant(s), State Legal Services
Authority, insurer and General Insurance Council.
The Investigating Officer or the insurance company
shall have right to verify the details of the driver
and the owner by using the VAHAN App or shall
take the help of Registering Authority.
Investigating Officer is duty bound to take the
relevant details from the victim(s) or the legal
representative(s), as the case may be and furnish
the details within 60 days in Form-VI. Form-VI-A is
modulated to the minor children, who are in needW.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 17 of 42
of care and protection in terms of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015.
31. On failure to submit the relevant information and
documents, as required in Forms III, IV and VI by
the driver(s), owner(s), claimant(s) or any
information by the insurance company, the
Investigating Officer may ask for direction to the
stakeholder(s) before the Claims Tribunal to
furnish such information within 15 days. The
registering authority is duty bound to verify the
licence of driver, fitness and permit of the
vehicle(s) involved in the accident and shall supply
such information within 15 days to the
Investigating Officer. Similarly, for the purpose of
issuance of medico legal report or the post-mortem
report, the hospital is required to furnish such
information to the Investigating Officer within 15
days.
32. The Investigating Officer shall within 90 days
compile all relevant documents and material in the
form of Detailed Accident Report (DAR) in Form-VII
accompanying site plan Form-VIII, mechanical
inspection report Form-IX, verification report Form-
X and the report under Section 173 Code of
Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) It would be the duty
of the registering authority to verify the
registration certificate, driving licence, fitness and
permit in respect of the vehicle(s) involved in the
accident and the same is required to be submitted
within 15 days to the Investigating Officer to
complete the IAR and DAR. The extension of time
limit to file IAR and DAR is only permissible where
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 18 of 42
the Investigating Officer approaches the Claims
Tribunal in cases where parties reside outside the
jurisdiction of the Court or where the driver‟s
licence is issued outside the jurisdiction of the
Court or where the victim(s) have suffered grievous
injuries and are undergoing continuous treatment.
Thus, the Investigating Officer shall furnish FAR
within 48 hours, IAR within 50 days, complete the
investigation within 60 days and file DAR within
90 days. Copy of DAR shall be furnished to the
victim(s), owner(s)/driver(s) of the vehicle(s), the
insurance company involved and the State Legal
Services Authority including the Nodal Officer of
the insurance company and the General Insurance
Council.
33. On perusal of the above, it is clear that to carry out
the purpose of the provisions of Sections 159 and
160 of the M.V. Amendment Act, the Officer In-
charge of the police station and the registering
authority are required to act upon in a manner as
prescribed in the Rules within the period as
specified, thereby on receiving the information of
accident, the complete information regarding such
accident is to be made available before the Claims
Tribunal within the time limit without delay. As
per Rules, the failure to perform the duties by the
police officer may entail severe consequences as
envisaged under the provisions of the State Police
Act. Thus, legislative intent is clear that on
reporting a road accident the Investigation Officer
must complete all his action within time frame and
shall act as facilitator to the victim(s)/claimant(s),
insurance company by furnishing all details inW.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 19 of 42
prescribed forms, thereby claimant(s) may get
damages/compensation without delay.”
6.7. It may be noteworthy to have regard to decision of the
Madras High Court the case of Malaravan Vrs. Praveen
Travels Private Lilmited, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 5467.
The following observations made therein are relevant:
“History of limitations to petitions for compensation:
6. Before dealing with the merits of the case, it is
necessary to deal with how the Law relating to
Limitation arose in the Motor Vehicles Act.
7. The first statutory intervention with respect to
Motor Vehicles came under the Motor Vehicles Act,
1939. This legislation was in force for nearly fifty
years. Under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, the period of limitation for the purpose of
making a claim was “six months” from the date of
the accident. The rigour of the Section was
softened by a proviso being added to the said
Section. Under that proviso, it was left to the
discretion of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
to condone the delay in filing the petition claiming
compensation if “sufficient cause” had been
shown. This applied for any length of delay and it
was not confined to any particular period.
8. The Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, was repealed by
the consolidated legislation in 1988. The said
Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 came into force on
01.07.1989. Under the new Act, Section 166 was
introduced. The period of limitation for filing a
claim was six months. The unbridled discretionary
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 20 of 42
power granted to the Court under the proviso to
Section 110A was taken away, though not in its
entirety, but was confined only to a further six
months period. This led to a lot of litigations as the
claims were filed after the condonable period.
9. Taking into consideration the difficulties that have
been caused to the claimants, the Parliament
amended Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act of
1988. The proviso which restricted the power of
the Tribunal to condone the delay only upto six
months (beyond the original period of six months)
was deleted. This was as per Act 56 of 1994. The
said amendment came into force on 14.11.1994.
10. Interpreting the amended Section 166 of the Act,
the Supreme Court was pleased to hold in
Dhannlal Vrs. D.P. Vijayvargiya, (1996) 4 SCC 652
as follows:
„It can be said that Parliament realised the grave
injustice and injury which was being caused to
the heirs and legal representatives of the victims
who died in accidents by rejecting their claim
petitions only on ground of limitation. It is a matter
of common knowledge that majority of the
claimants for such compensation are ignorant
about the period during which such claims should
be preferred. After the death due to the accident,
of the bread earner of the family, in many cases
such claimants are virtually on the streets. Even in
cases where the victims escapes death some of
such victims are hospitalized for months if not for
years…‟W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 21 of 42
11. By virtue of this Judgment, persons approached
the Court after any length of time. The provisions
stood still, till the new amendment to Section 166
of the Act. Under the new Section 166 which came
with effect from 01.04.2022, the period of
limitation has been re-introduced. Section 166
reads as follows: ***
12. Under this provision no claim can be entertained
beyond the period of six months from the date of
the accident. Perhaps this has worked on the mind
of the learned Judge to come to the conclusion that
the MACTOP filed by the Civil Revision Petitioner is
barred.
13. Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan, the learned Amicus Curiae
would take me to the history behind Section 158(6)
of the Motor Vehicles Act (prior to Section 159).
According to him, the said Section was introduced
by the Parliament under Act 56 of 1994 with effect
from 14.11.1994. He would state that this was in
recognition of “Epistolary Jurisdiction” developed
by the Supreme Court in public interest litigations.
He would state that by virtue of Section 158(6), an
FIR registered by the Police was mandated to be
filed before the jurisdictional Claims Tribunal as
well as before the State Legal Services Authority.
He would bring to my notice that Section 158(6)
(now Section 159) was never given life till the
substantial amendments were made on
01.04.2002.
14. On 01.04.2022, Chapter XI to the Motor Vehicles
Act was introduced. It is the submission of the
learned Amicus that Section 159 [Pari materia to
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 22 of 42
158(6)] has to be read along with the newly
introduced Sections. He adds Section 159 will
have to be read along with the Rules which have
been notified by the Government of India titled to
the “Central Motor Vehicle Rules”. Section 159
reads as follows:
„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 such particulars
and submit the same to the Claims Tribunal
and such other agency as may be
prescribed.‟
15. Section 159 mandates that on the occurrence of
the accident the police should file FIR and when
read with the rule send a copy of the same within
48 hours within the jurisdictional MACT. This in
line with 150A of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules
(CMV). He would state that the procedure that has
been found gets inspiration from the Judgment of
the Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha (As His
Lordship then was) of the Delhi High Court in R.
Rajesh Tyagi I to Rajesh Tyagi IV.
***
Shift from right to duty:
20. The Parliament taking note of such a rapid
development in Information Technology introduced
Section 166(3) and 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles
Act. These Sections have to be read along with
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 23 of 42
Rule 150A read with Annexure XIII of Central
Motor Vehicles Rules with Forms I to IX. If they are
read so, then it is no more the right of an accident
victim to file a claim petition under Section 166 but
it has bloomed into a full fledged duty on the part
of the police. The police on investigation have to
file an FAR (First Accident Report), IAR (Interim
Accident Report) and DAR (Detailed Accident
Report). As per Rule 18 of Annexure XIII, it has
been mandatory on the Claims Tribunal to kick
start the compensatory mechanism. Rule 21 of the
Central rules ensures that the DAR filed by the
police shall be treated as a Claim Petition.
21. Taking note of all these developments, the
Supreme Court of India rendered a Judgment in
Gohar Mohammed Vrs. Uttar Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation in S.L.P.(C). No. 32448 of
2018. A reading of this Judgment goes to show
that the Police are no more playing a mere role of
an Investigating Authority and stopping with mere
parting of information. They are mandated by the
Parliament to file reports with the Claims Tribunal,
which should treat the same as a claim petition.
The claimants have been freed from the shackles
and are no more burdened to search for the
documents necessary for filing a claim. The duty
to report is now the police and the duty to process
the said information given by the police and
uploaded on to the website lies on the Tribunal.
When access is given to the Tribunal to an FIR and
the other details which have been uploaded by the
police the claimant need not be made to run
around or suffer from a fear that his petition is
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 24 of 42
barred by time. It is the duty of the Claims
Tribunal to access the information available to it
and process the claim and give succour to the
victims. It is not an advisorial system as was
practiced before 01.04.2022 other parts of India
(before 12.09.1979 in Tamil Nadu) but today it is a
people oriented justice delivery Tribunal.
22. It is seen that the police is required to prefer an
Accident Information Report and furnish the
information with the jurisdictional Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal and other Stakeholders are
specified. It is here that the compilation made
ready by the Hon‟ble Mr. Justice J.R. Midha (Retd)
presently Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of
India become relevant.
23. For the ready understanding, I am extracting the
new timelines that have come under the Central
Motor Vehicles Act, 2022.
„9. The time lines prescribed by the Central
Motor Vehicles Rules, 2022 for expeditious
adjudication of motor accident claims are as
under:–
(i) The Police has to file Within 48
First Accident Report hours of the
(FAR) in Form-I before accident
MACT
(ii) The Driver of the Within 30
offending vehicle has to days of the
submit the the Driver‟s accident
Form III to the Police
(iii) The Owner of the Within 30
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 25 of 42
offending vehicle has to days of the
submit the Owner‟s accident
Form-IV to the Police
(iv) The Police, on Within 50
verification of the days of the
Driver‟s and Owner‟s acccident
accident Forms, has to
submit Interim Accident
Report (IAR) in Form-V
before MACT
10. The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 2022
incorporated the flowchart of the Scheme
framed by Delhi High Court in Rajesh Tyagi‟s
Case which is reproduced hereunder:–
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 26 of 42
24. Taking note of this development in Gohar
Mohammed Vrs. Uttar Pradesh State Road
Transport Corporation in S.L.P.(C). No. 32448 of
2018, the Supreme Court was pleased to hold as
follows:
„29. As per the Rules, in the event of a road
accident, the investigation must be started
immediately on receipt of information by the
police officer of the police station concerned.
The Investigating Officer shall inspect site of
accident, take photographs/videos of scene
and vehicle involved, followed by preparation
of site plan drawn to scale as to indicate the
width of road(s) as the case may be and
other relevant factors including the persons
and vehicles involved in the accident. In a
case of injury, the Investigating Officer shall
take photographs of the injured in the
hospital and shall conduct spot enquiry
examining the eyewitnesses/bystanders.
The intimation regarding the accident is
required to be furnished by Investigating
Officer within 48 hours to the Claims
Tribunal in the shape of First Accident Report
(FAR) in Form I. It is further required to be
sent to the Nodal Officer of the insurance
company on having particulars of the
insurance policy. The injured/victim(s), legal
representative(s), State Legal Services
Authority, insurer shall also be provided the
copy of Form I and the same must be
uploaded on the website of the State Police, if
available.
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 27 of 42
30. It would be the duty of the Investigating
Officer to inform the injured/victim(s)/legal
representative(s) regarding their rights by
supplying Form II attaching flow chart within
10 days specifying the scheme to seek
remedial measure. It would be the duty of
the Investigating Officer to ask the
information in Form III and Form IV from the
driver(s) and the owner(s) respectively within
30 days. As per the new regime, on receiving
the information, Interim Accident Report (IAR)
shall be submitted by the Investigating
Officer to the Claims Tribunal within 50 days
in Form V along with relevant documents. A
copy of the said IAR shall be furnished to the
insurance company of the motor vehicle(s)
involved in the road accident,
victim(s)/claimant(s), State Legal Services
Authority, insurer and General Insurance
Council. The Investigating Officer or the
insurance company shall have right to verify
the details of the driver and the owner by
using the VAHAN App or shall take the help
of Registering Authority. Investigating Officer
is duty bound to take the relevant details
from the victim(s) or the legal
representative(s), as the case may be and
furnish the details within 60 days in Form
VI. Form VIA is modulated to the minor
children, who are in need of care and
protection in terms of the Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 28 of 42
31. On failure to submit the relevant information
and documents, as required in Forms III, IV
and VI by the driver(s), owner(s), claimant(s)
or any information by the insurance
company, the Investigating Officer may ask
for direction to the stakeholder(s) before the
Claims Tribunal to furnish such information
within 15 days. The registering authority is
duty bound to verify the licence of driver,
fitness and permit of the vehicle(s) involved
in the accident and shall supply such
information within 15 days to the
Investigating Officer. Similarly, for the
purpose of issuance of medico legal report or
the post-mortem report, the hospital is
required to furnish such information to the
Investigating Officer within 15 days.
32. The Investigating Officer shall within 90
days compile all relevant documents and
material in the form of Detailed Accident
Report (DAR) in Form VII accompanying site
plan Form VIII, mechanical inspection report
Form IX, verification report Form X and the
report under Section 173 Code of Criminal
Procedure (Cr.P.C.). It would be the duty of
the registering authority to verify the
registration certificate, driving licence, fitness
and permit in respect of the vehicle(s)
involved in the accident and the same is
required to be submitted within 15 days to
the Investigating Officer to complete the IAR
and DAR. The extension of time limit to file
IAR and DAR is only permissible where the
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 29 of 42
Investigating Officer approaches the Claims
Tribunal in cases where parties reside
outside the jurisdiction of the Court or where
the driver’s licence is issued outside the
jurisdiction of the Court or where the victim(s)
have suffered grievous injuries and are
undergoing continuous treatment. Thus, the
Investigating Officer shall furnish FAR within
48 hours, IAR within 50 days, complete the
investigation within 60 days and file DAR
within 90 days. Copy of DAR shall be
furnished to the victim(s), owner(s)/driver(s)
of the vehicle(s), the insurance company
involved and the State Legal Services
Authority including the Nodal Officer of the
insurance company and the General
Insurance Council.
33. On perusal of the above, it is clear that to
carry out the purpose of the provisions of
Sections 159 and 160 of the M.V.
Amendment Act, the Officer In-charge of the
police station and the registering authority
are required to act upon in a manner as
prescribed in the Rules within the period as
specified, thereby on receiving the
information of accident, the complete
information regarding such accident is to be
made available before the Claims Tribunal
within the time limit without delay. As per
Rules, the failure to perform the duties by the
police officer may entail severe consequences
as envisaged under the provisions of the
State Police Act. Thus, legislative intent is
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 30 of 42
clear that on reporting a road accident the
Investigation Officer must complete all his
action within time frame and shall act as
facilitator to the victim(s)/claimant(s),
insurance company by furnishing all details
in prescribed forms, thereby claimant(s) may
get damages/compensation without delay.”
25. A perusal of the rules, the Judgment of the
Supreme Court and the timeline which has
been set forth above would clearly show
that, the claim petition need not be
commenced only by way of presentation of
the petition under Section 166. This is clear
from Section 166(4) which states that a
report filed by the police to the concerned
Authorities including the stakeholders,
Insurance Companies and the jurisdictional
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal should be
treated as the Claim Petition.
26. During the course of arguments, I asked the
learned Amicus Curiae if there being no bar
under Section 166(3) excluding the
application of Limitation Act, whether Section
29(2) of the Limitation Act can be applied and
Section 5 of the Act to be introduced for the
purpose of condonation of delay. I asked this
question because I could not imagine that
under the constitutional governance which
has been placed from 26.01.1950, the State
which promises Justice– Socio, Economic
and political, can be even more harsh than
the colonial legislation under Section 110A of
the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939.
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 31 of 42
27. The learned Amicus Curiae drew my
attention to the two Judgments of the Kerala
High Court in (i) Vimala Jose Vrs. Aboobacker
in O.P.(MAC) No. 136 of 2022 dated
02.12.2022 and (ii) Akshay Raj Vrs. Ministry
of Law and Justice Legislative Department
rep. By the Secretary, IV Floor, A Wing,
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi in O.P.(MAC) No.
6 of 2023 dated 23.01.2023 and pointed out
that Section 5 was made applicable by the
Kerala High Court but their operation has
been kept in abeyance by the Supreme Court
of India. Since the issue is pending before the
Supreme Court of India though I prima facie
wanted to adopt the view taken by the
Kerala High Court in Akshay Raj‟s case, I am
refraining from to do so.
28. The Parliament in its wisdom has ensured
that the hapless victims of motor accidents
need not depend upon stakeholders in Court
for the purpose of initiation of proceedings.
The proceeding itself is initiated on the basis
of the report filed by the Police Authorities. In
effect, the petition under Section 166 is only
a reminder to the Court that the police have
already filed the Detailed Accident Report
containing all the requisite details like the
First Information Report, Interim Accident
Report, First Accident Report and therefore, it
has to take up the said report as a claim
petition. In other words, the claim petition is
only a reminder to the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal to perform its duty under
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 32 of 42
Rule 21 Annexure XIII of Central Motor
Vehicles Rules and to process the claim
petition.
29. In view of the above discussion, it is clear
that in cases where any request is filed and
accessible by the Tribunal, then there will be
no question of six months limitation arising.
The issue of six months limitation will arise
only in case where no FIR has been
registered by the Police and no report has
been sent/uploaded.
30. The members of the Bar represented that the
Police are not sending the report and hence,
there arises a problem.
31. A reading of Section 166(4) shows that if any
report of the accident is forwarded to it under
Section 159, the same shall be treated as an
application for compensation. It is no more
the discretion of the police. Rule 4(A)(5)(1) of
the Tamil Nadu Rules read with the Central
Rules make it mandatory. It has now become
a statutory duty of the Police to sent a report.
It is pertinent to point out that the
amendment under Section 166(4) does not
speak about the Interim Accident Report
(IAR), First Accident Report (FAR) and
Detailed Accident Report (DAR) but speaks
about “any report that has been sent by the
police”. Therefore, even if an FIR sent by the
police to the Tribunal, the same should be
treated a Claim Petition.
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 33 of 42
32. The upshot of the discussion is that on
registration of an FIR, a claimant is entitled
to present the petition without the fear of it
being thrown out, on the ground of limitation.
This would be the correct reading of the
present legal dispensation in all cases where
FIR is registered within six months, of the
date of any motor accident which takes place
after 01.04.2022.
33. Consequently, applying the Law discussed
above to the facts of the present case, this
Civil Revision petition is allowed. The FIR
having been registered, in this case, within
two days from the date of the accident on
13.10.2022 by Oragadam Police Station, the
petition filed in M.A.C.T.O.P.(SR). No. 3280 of
2023 has to only be treated as a reminder to
the Court to call for the FIR and other reports
and register the same as a Claim Petition.”
6.8. The Kerala High Court in the case of Sathy Vrs. Dileep,
I.S., OP (MAC) No. 51 of 2022, vide Judgment dated
01.06.2022, observed as follows:
“7. It is a matter of record that when the old Motor
Vehicles Act 1939 was substituted and repealed
by Act of 1988, the provision of limiting the right to
file claim petition was six months. The
aforementioned period of six months was omitted
by way of amendment in the year 1994. Thus, the
affected parties had a right to file claim petition in
a case of injury or death at any point of time
untrammeled by the objection of limitation.
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 34 of 42
Legislature in the wisdom on due deliberation
have reintroduced the aforementioned erstwhile
provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 166 limiting
the right to entertain the claim petition before the
concerned court within a period of six months from
the date of the accident. The accident in this case,
as noticed above, had occurred on 23.5.2019. The
claim petition was filed on 23.4.2022. By that time
the new amendment had already come into force
by Act 32 of 2019 effective from 01.04.2022
resulting into the impugned order. The same reads
as under:
„This application is filed under Section 166(1) of
MV Act, 1988. The date of accident is 23.5.2019.
As per Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 2019,
which came into force with effect from 1.4.2022,
the application to be filed within six months of the
occurrence of the accident [vide Section 166(3) of
the M.V. Act, 1988]. The present application filed
on 23.04.2022 is barred by limitation. In the
result, this application is rejected as time barred.‟
8. It is settled law that in case there is no provision
protecting the rights of a litigant viz. by causing
amendment which inexplicably takes away
exceptional rights, then the provisions of Section 6
of General Clauses Act, 1897 would come into
play. Similar situation had occurred when the
amendment was caused in the old Act of 1939 by
introducing Act of 1988 wherein in a case of no
fault liability the maximum compensation of MACT
award was Rs.15,000/-. The High Court while
entertaining the appeal by taking aid of the
amended provisions of Section 140 introduced by
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 35 of 42
way of 1988 amendments gave the benefit of
Rs.50,000/-. The aforementioned objection was
assailed before the Supreme Court in a matter
reported in State of Punjab and others Vrs. Bhajan
Kaur and others, 2008 (3) KHC 823 = (2008) 7
SCR 1111 = 2008 INSC 612. After deliberation on
the issue, it was held that when there is no
introduction or omisision of the provisions of the
Act, there is no intention of the legislature to have
its prospective or retro-active applicability and in
such circumstances, the amendment caused in the
new Act would have a prospective effect. It would
be expedient to extract paragraphs 13, 16 and 17
of the above judgment:
„13. No reason has been assigned as to why the
1988 Act should be held to be retrospective
in character. The rights and liabilities of the
parties are determined when cause of action
for filing the claim petition arises. As
indicated herein before, the liability under
the Act is a statutory liability. The liability
could, thus, be made retrospective only by
reason of a statute or statutory rules. It was
required to be so stated expressly by the
Parliament. Applying the principles of
interpretation of statute, the 1988 Act cannot
be given retrospective effect, more
particularly, when it came into force on or
about 01.07.1989. ***
16. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act,
therefore, inter alia saves a right accrued
and/or a liability incurred. It does not create
a right. When Section 6 applies only an
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 36 of 42
existing right is saved thereby. The existing
right of a party has to be determined on the
basis of the statute which was applicable
and not under the new one. If a new Act
confers a right, it does so with prospective
effect when it comes into force, unless
expressly stated otherwise. Section 140 of
the 1988 Act does not contain any
procedural provision so as to construe it to
have retrospective effect. It cannot enlarge
any right. Rights of the parties are to be
determined on the basis of the law as it then
stood, viz., before the new Act come into
force.
17. It is now well-settled that a change in the
substantive law, as opposed to adjective
law, would not affect the pending litigation
unless the legislature has enacted otherwise,
either expressly or by necessary implication.‟
9. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897
postulates the situation of a similar nature where
by protecting right, privilege, obligation or liability
acquired or accrued under any repealed
enactment. It is settled law that the provisions of
the new Act cannot infringe or re-ligate the right
granted under the old Act. Section 6 of General
Clauses Act reads thus:
„6. Effect of repeal.– Where this Act, or any
Central Act or Regulation made after the
commencement of this Act, repeals any
enactment hitherto made or hereafter to beW.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 37 of 42
made, then, unless a different intention
appears, the repeal shall not–
(a) revive anything not in force or existing at the
time at which the repeal takes effect; or
(b) affect the previous operation of any
enactment so repealed or anything duly done
or suffered thereunder; or
(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or
liability acquired, accrued or incurred under
any enactment so repealed; or
(d) affect any penalty, forfeiture or punishment
incurred in respect of any offence committed
against any enactment so repealed; or
(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or
remedy in respect of any such right,
privilege, obligation, liability, penalty,
forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid; and
any such investigation, legal proceeding or
remedy may be instituted, continued or
enforced, and any such penalty, forfeiture or
punishment may be imposed as if the
repealing Act or Regulation had not been
passed.‟
10. Since while introducing the Act of 2019 effective
from 01.04.2022, Legislature did not cause any
amendment in the repealing and savings clause
specifying its applicability in respect of the
accidents occurred prior to the introduction of the
amendment, in view of the provisions of Section 6
and the observations of the Supreme Court in theW.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 38 of 42
judgment in State of Punjab and others Vrs.
Bhajan Kaur and others (supra), I am of the view
that the applicability of the Act i.e., introduction of
the old provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 166,
would have a prospective effect and the limitation
period of six months would apply after
introduction of the amendment i.e., post 1st April
2022. In other words, in any accident occurred
after 01.04.2022, provisions of the amendment
caused in the Act prescribing the limitation to
entertain a claim petition, the parties would be
governed by the same but not in respect of the
persons whom a right had already accrued and
was available if the amendment had not been
caused.”
6.9. Following the view of the Kerala High Court, the
Allahabad High Court in the case of Mangal Batra Vrs.
Mohammad Rafeeq Visayati, Writ-C No.22096 of 2022,
vide Order dated 10.08.2022 held as follows:
“11. Upon the bare reading of the aforesaid provisions,
I find that second proviso to sub-Section (1) of
Section 166 has been added and further sub-
Section (3) and (5) have been added. Sub-Section
(3) which is newly added section provides
limitation of a period of six months for moving a
claim petition of the occurrence of the accident.
12. Now what is material and substantially important
is that limitation would run from the date of
occurrence of the accident.
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 39 of 42
13. Now it is necessary to examine the amending Act
itself in order to decipher its mode of
implementation. ***
14. A close scrutiny of aforesaid provisions makes it
evident beyond any doubt that the amending Act,
2019 shall come into force only from the date it is
notified by the Central Government in the official
Gazette and there may be different dates for
different provisions to be brought into force.
15. Amending provisions in question brought on
Statute vide Act No. 32 of 2019, were notified to
be made operative in the official Gazette by the
Central Government on 25th February, 2022 to be
effectively operative w.e.f. 1st April, 2022. It is
clear that until such notification as noticed above,
the amending provisions of the Act No. 32 of 2019
with respect of Section 166, were not brought into
force and since the amending Act of 2019 did not
make it retrospective from the date of its
notification and did not prescribed any
amendment/alteration in repeal and saving clause
of the Act so as to make it applicable in respect of
the accident that had taken place prior to the date
of notification, I find the view taken by the Kerala
High Court to be justified and, therefore, do not
find any reason to defer from the same.
16. As far as the other ground is concerned regarding
condoning the delay during which limitation of six
months‟ period is to be exempted on the ground of
the impact of pandemic Covid-19 throughout the
Nation in general and in State of Uttar Pradesh in
particular, I find substance in the argument asW.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 40 of 42
well. However, since I am not able to uphold the
order of the Tribunal on the very first ground
alone, I need not go in detail into the second
argument.
17. In view of the above, the order dated 18th April,
2022 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim
Tribunal is hereby set aside.”
6.10. The aforesaid view expressed by the Kerala High Court
has been followed by the Madras High Court in the
case of Shanmathi Vrs. Ravi, CRP No.2451 of 2023,
vide Order dated 19.07.2023.
6.11. In Mohd. Tibul Choudhury Vrs. Regional Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Gau
1984, it is held as follows:
“In light of the legal position established in the
aforementioned cases, and considering that the
accident occurred on 03.05.2019, 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.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 07.11.2020
must be interfered with, and accordingly, it is set
aside.”
7. Examining the factual matrix of the instant case with
reference to legal perspective as discussed by different
Courts, this Court finds no reason to vary with the
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 41 of 42
enunciation of opinion that sub-section (3) as inserted
in Section 166 by virtue of the MV (Amendment) Act,
2019, has come into force with effect from 01.04.2022
and the law prevailing as on the date of accident
would be governed.
7.1. In the present case, the accident having occurred prior
to coming into force the Motor Vehicles (Amendment)
Act, 2019, the learned 19.11.2021, the learned MACT
has rightly held that intention of legislation behind the
enactment of the provisions of Section 166 of the MV
Act as well as the corresponding law is to provide
necessary compensation to the victims of the road
accidents and the said enactment is a benevolent piece
of legislation. Ergo, the said learned Tribunal has
justiciably dismissed the petition filed by the Shriram
General Insurance Company Ltd. raising issue of
maintainability of the claims case.
8. For the reasons ascribed hitherto and discussions
made, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, with no
order as to costs.
(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA
Designation: Senior Stenographer The 6th January, 2025//Laxmikant/Suchitra
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 07-Jan-2025 18:08:31
W.P.(C) No.24028 of 2024 Page 42 of 42