Chattisgarh High Court
Vikas Manikpuri vs Manraj Toppo on 6 February, 2023
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MA(C ) No.534 of 2021
Vikas Manikpuri, S/o Ram Birich, Aged About 17 Years, Through
Natural Guardian Mother Namely Manmati Manikpuri, aged about -
40 Years, R/o Village- Jarhadih, Police Station- Lundra, District :
Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Manraj Toppo, S/o Chanda Toppo, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village-
Kayanpurchrigah, Nawanagar, Police Station- Darima, District-
Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of C.G.15/A/2018)
2. Abdul Abbas, S/o Late Basir Mohammed, Aged About 40 Years,
Proprietor Rajdhani Transport, R/o Kharsiya Naka, Ambikapur, Police
Station and Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.
(Owner of C.G.15/A/2018).
3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Through- Branch Manager,
Brahma Road, Near Hotel Kumkum, Ambikapur, District- Surguja,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
__________________________________________________________________
For Appellant : Shri Anurag Singh, Advocate.
For Respondent No.3 : Shri R.N. Pusty, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Order on Board
06/02/2023
1. Challenge to this appeal is the award /order dated 03.12.2019
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District -
Surguja, Chhattisgarh (in short 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accident
Claim Case No.207/2019 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the
claim petition preferred by the appellant/claimant holding it to be
barred by time.
2. The facts which are essential to be stated for adjudication of this
appeal are that on 07.12.2017, the appellant along with his mother
and father was travelling from Jarhadih to Sahanpur and while
returning at around 6:15 PM near village Bulga, the ofending vehicle
driven by respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner dashed the
appellant and his mother due to which they sustained grievous
injuries on various parts of their body. Subsequently, both of them
were taken to District Hospital, Ambikapur where they received
medical treatment. Thereafter, the appellant/claimant fled a claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as ' the Principal Act') before the Tribunal
claiming compensation total amounting to Rs.14,00,000/-.
3. The aforesaid claim petition fled by the appellant/claimant was
dismissed by the Tribunal holding it to be barred by time as it was
instituted beyond the prescribed period of six months from the date
of occurrence of the accident as provided under subsection (3) of
Section 166 of the Principal Act, which was inserted by virtue of
Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act').
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that
since the accident had taken place on 07.12.2017 i.e., prior to the
Amendment Act when the relevant provision of the Principal Act was
in force, where no time period was prescribed, the proceeding as
initiated before the Tribunal, therefore must have been governed by
provisions made in the said Principal Act and the claim could not
have been held to be barred by time by taking recourse to the said
provisions as inserted by the said Amendment Act. According to him,
although the said Amendment Act has come into force w.e.f. 1 st
September, 2019, but the provisions of Section 53 of it proposing to
amend the said provision in Section 166 of the Principal Act were
notifed in the Gazette of India dated 25 th February, 2022 and as per
the notifcation, the provision of Section 53 of the Amendment Act
should have come into force from 1st April, 2022. Therefore, the
learned Tribunal has, committed a serious illegality in dismissing the
claim petition by holding it to be barred by time.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 opposes the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant/claimant.
6. The Amendment Act, 2019 was published on 9 th August, 2019 in the
Gazette of India which has amended the Principal Act drastically.
7. Section 1 of the Amendment Act is relevant for the purpose which
reads as under:-
"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 notifcation in the Ofcial Gazette, appoint and diferent
dates may be appointed for diferent 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."
8. A bare perusal of sub-section (2) of the aforesaid provision makes it
clear that the provisions contained therein i.e. Amendment Act
would be attracted only by virtue of the notifcation issued by the
Central Government and unless and until it is notifed, it cannot be
said to be operational.
9. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by
subsection (2) of Section 1 of the Amendment Act has issued a
notifcation appointing the 1st day of April, 2022 as the date on
which the following provisions of the Amendment Act have come
into force, namely:-
Sl. No. Sections
1. Section 50;
2. Section 51;
3. Section 52;
4. Section 53;
5. Section 54;
6. Section 55;
7. Section 56;
8. Section 57; and
9. Section 93;
10. On bare perusal of the table, it is clear that the provision of Section
53 of the Amendment Act have come into force from 1 st April, 2022
only, therefore, the fnding recorded by the learned Tribunal holding
that the petition is time barred, is not in accordance with law.
11.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment/order dated
03.12.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal is herein quashed and
claim petition is accordingly restored with a direction that the Claim
Tribunal shall register it and decide the same in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge
Prakash
