Delhi High Court
Suman & Anr. vs Shyamveer Singh & Anr. on 17 March, 2021
$~4
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 17.03.2021
+ MAC.APP. 248/2020 & CM APPL. 30545/2020
SUMAN & ANR. ..... Appellants
versus
SHYAMVEER SINGH & ANR. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sajjan Kr. Singh and Mr. Santosh Kr. Sahu,
Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anshum Jain and Mr. Amol Sinha , Advocate.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICESANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Appellants impugn judgment dated 01.04.2019 whereby the
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has dismissed the application for
compensation filed by the appellant on the ground of delay.
2. Subject accident is alleged to have taken place on 02.02.1998.
The claim petition was filed on 19.08.2014 after a gap of 16 years an d
6 months. Tribunal has rejected the claim on the ground of limitation.
3. The only ground taken by learned counsel for the appellants is
that appellants are illiterate and living in a village and were not aware
of their rights. No other reason has been stated by learned counsel for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:17.03.2021 23:09:51
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
the appellants or in the appeal which prevented t he appellants from
approaching the Tribunal for making a claim for compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants relies on the decision of t h e
Supreme Court in Purohit & Company Vs. Khatoonbee & Ors.
2017(4) SCC 783 to contend that as the limitation prescribed u nder
the Motor Vehicle Act was specifically deleted by omission of Section
166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called t h e Act ),
the claim should have been entertained even after a lapse of 16 years
and 6 months.
5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in the impugned award
has also relied upon the judgment in Purohit & Company Vs.
Khatoonbee & Ors. (Supra) to hold that the claim could not be
permitted to be filed merely because of am endment an d deletion of
Section 166 (3) of the Act.
6. Supreme Court in Purohit & Company Vs. Khatoonbee & Ors.
(Supra) has held that deletion of Section 166(3) would not am ount t o
all and sundry to approach the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal t o
raise the claim of compensation at any juncture after the accident h ad
taken place. An individual concerned must approach the Tribunal
within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court has held that the
question of reasonable time would depend on facts and circumstances
of each case.
7. In the present case as noticed above, there is a delay of 16 years
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:17.03.2021 23:09:51
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
and 6 months in approaching the Tribunal and n o explanation h as
been given by the appellant either before the Tribunal or before t h is
Court as to what prevented the appellants from approaching the
Tribunal within a reasonable time.
8. 16 years and 6 months' time cannot by stretch of im agination
be treated as a reasonable time in not approaching the Tribunal for a
claim for compensation.
9. Mere submission that appellants resided in a village an d was
not aware of her rights, to my mind is not a valid ground for not
approaching the Tribunal within a reasonable time.
10. I find no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal in rejecting
the claim petition on the ground of limitation. I fin d n o m erit in t he
appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 17, 2021
'rs'
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL
MAGGU
Signing Date:17.03.2021 23:09:51
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
