Page No.# 1/6 vs Tilak Das And 2 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 1443 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/6 vs Tilak Das And 2 Ors on 24 July, 2025

                                                                    Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010061132020




                                                             undefined

                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : MACApp./550/2022

         KALPANA RAY KARMAKAR AND ANR
         W/O- SHRI NEPAL RAY KARMAKAR, R/O- VILL.- KHAIRABARI,
         KAMARPOTTI, P.S. BARPETA ROAD, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781315.

         2: NEPAL RAY KARMAKAR
          S/O- LATE DAGURAM KARMAKAR
          R/O- VILL.- KHAIRABARI
          KAMARPOTTI
          P.S. BARPETA ROAD
          DIST.- BARPETA
         ASSAM
          PIN- 781315

         VERSUS

         TILAK DAS AND 2 ORS
         S/O- LATE PITAMBAR DAS, R/O- VILL.- SORBHOG TOWN, WARD NO. 4, P.S.
         SORBHOG, DIST.- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781317.

         2:BAREK ALI
          S/O- LATE MATIUR RAHMAN
          R/O- VILL.- SARUHARIT
          P.S. SORBHOG
          DIST.- BARPETA
         ASSAM
          PIN- 781317.

         3:THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
          HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE
          25/27
          ASAF ALI ROAD
          NEW DELHI- 110002 AND BRANCH OFFICE AT SEVERAL PLACES
         INCLUDING THE CONCERNED BRANCH BEING BARPETA ROAD BRANCH
          BARPETA ROAD
                                                                       Page No.# 2/6

              DIST.- BARPETA
              ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. B K JAIN, MS. O PHUKAN

Advocate for the Respondent : ,




                                         BEFORE
                       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

                                         ORDER

24.07.2025

Heard Mr. B. K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants and also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No.3

2. In this appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 11.11.2019, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in M.A.C Case No. 147/2019.

2.1. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and order dated 11.11.2019, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on the point of limitation.

3. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the accident took place on 06.02.2019, and thereafter, the appellants herein had preferred the claim petition, under Section 166 M.V. Act, before the learned Tribunal on 21.08.2019. But, the learned Tribunal had dismissed the same for being filed beyond the period of 6 (six) months, as stipulated under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act of 2019. Referring to Section 53(3) of the Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 2019, Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants, Page No.# 3/6

also pointed out that though the Motor Vehicles Act, was amended in the year 2019, and some of the Sections came into force w.e.f. 28.08.2019 the date of Gazette Notification, yet, Section 53(3) which relates to the provision of Section 166(3), came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2022, as the same was notified in the Gazette of India on that date and in that view of the matter the impugned order, so passed by the learned Tribunal, dismissing the claim preferred by the appellant is erroneous and arbitrary and therefore, the same requires interference of this Court.

3.1. Mr. Jain, referring to a decision of Coordinate Bench before this Court, in the case of CRP No. 172/2019, dated 03.03.2021, also submits that in the said order it has been held that notwithstanding the Amending Act of 2019, Section 52 to 57 thereof must be deemed to have not came into force as the Central Government has not notified the date of appointment for coming into force of the said provision and thereafter, the Court was pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 05.11.2019, of the said petition directed the learned Tribunal to restore the MAC Case No. 147/2019, to the file and thereafter, to proceed with the said claim petition in accordance with law. And in the present case also after setting aside the impugned order dated 11.11.2019, the case may be remanded to the learned Tribunal to proceed with the claim petition in accordance with law.

4. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, submits that he has no objection in the event of remanding the matter back to the learned Tribunal by setting aside the impugned order.

6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and the relevant provision of law and also perused the impugned order dated Page No.# 4/6

11.11.2019.

6. The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 No. 32 of 2019 was notified on 9th August, 2019. Sub-Section 2 of the said Act, read as under:-

(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.

6.1. By Section 53 of the said amended Act Section 166 M.V. Act, is amended and new sub-Section 3 is inserted. Section 53 of the Amended Act read as under:-

53. 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."

Power of State Government to make rules.

Amendment of section 165. Amendment of section 166. 32 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY [PART II--

(ii) in sub-section (2), the proviso shall be omitted;

(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.".

Page No.# 5/6

(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. It also appears that the learned Tribunal had relied upon a Gazette Notification dated 28.08.2019, and thereafter, held that the said provision has came into force and since the claim petition filed beyond the period of 6 (six) months, it had dismissed the claim petition was being not maintainable in law.

6.3. It is not in dispute that though some of the provision of the Amended Act was notified on 28.08.2019 yet, Section 53 of the amended Act, by which Section 166 is amended, by inserting sub-Section (3), came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2022, not from Gazette Notification, dated 28.08.2019, as different date was appointed for coming into force of Section 53 of the amended Act in view of Section 2 of the amended Act.

7. But, the learned Tribunal had misconstrued that the Section 53 of the amended Act came into force with effect from the date of Gazette Notification dated 28.08.2019. But, in fact, it came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2022, and then calculated the period of six months from the date of accident i.e. 06.02.2019, and thereafter calculated the period of six month from that date, till the date of filing of claim petition on 21.08.2019 and as in the meantime the period of six months elapsed, it had dismissed the claim petition by holding the same barred Page No.# 6/6

by Sub-Section 3 to Section 166 of amended Act.

8. Since, Section 53 of the amended Act, by which Section 166 is amended, by inserting sub-Section (3), came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2022, calculation of the period of six months from the date of accident, under sub-Section (3), which in fact never came into force with effect from 08.08.2019, the dismissal of the claim petition by the learned Tribunal is illegal and on such count the same warrant interference of this Court.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 11.11.2019, stands set aside and quashed. Consequently, the learned Tribunal shall restore the claim petition, being MAC Case No. 147/2019, into his filed and thereafter it shall proceed to hear the same in accordance with law.

10. Since the accident took placed in the year 2019, and the claim petition was filed on 21.08.2019, this Court is inclined to request the learned Tribunal to expedite the hearing and shall make an endeavour to dispose of the same as soon as practicable, preferably within a period of 6 (six) months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The appellants shall obtain certified copy of this order and place the same before the learned Tribunal within a period of 1 (one) week from today.

11. In terms of above this MACApp No. 550/2022, stands disposed of. The parties have to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant