Jharkhand High Court
Branch Manager vs Jai Gun Nisha @ Jai Gun Nisha Bibi on 23 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 240 of 2012
Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Berhompore, Murshidabad (W.B.) .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Jai Gun Nisha @ Jai Gun Nisha Bibi
2. Jibrail Miya @ Jibrail Ansari
3. Sudhan Nandi
4. Pradeep Kumar Rakshit
5. Jagdish Pd. Bhagat .... .... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Arbind Kr. Lal, Advocate
C.A.V. ON 17.02.2022 PRONOUNCED ON 23 /02/2022
1. The Insurance Company has preferred the instant appeal against the
judgment and award of compensation in M.A.C.T. Case No. 16 of 2006
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, whereby and
whereunder compensation has been awarded for the death of deceased
Ibrahim Ansari who died in a motor vehicle accident on 14.04.1988.
2. The appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that as per the
claimant's case the accident took place on 14.04.1988 whereas the
claim case has been filed in the year 2006 under Section 110A(3) of the
Motor Vehicle Act 1939 after more than 17 years of the accident.
Under the old Act there was a specific period of limitation of six
months for filing the claim application and, therefore, the instant claim
is hopelessly barred by limitation. As per the original provision of
Section 166 of the 1988 Act there was a period of limitation of six
months from the date of the accident for preferring the appeal which
was completely done away with by deleting Section 166(3) of the
Motor Vehicle Act 1988 w.e.f. 14.11.1994.
3. It is submitted that permitting old and stale cases to be filed was not the
object of deleting the limitation by the 1994 Amendment Act. Reliance
has been placed on M/s. Purohit & Company vs. Khatoonbee & Anr.
reported in 2017 0 AIR (SC) 1612, wherein it has been held that only a
live and surviving claim can be said to be genuine of the claimant must
approach the Tribunal within a reasonable time. In that case a period of
28 years was held to be not reasonable for filing the claims application.
4. It has been held in Vinod Gurudas Raikar v. National Insurance Co.
Ltd., (1991) 4 SCC 333 at page 337 that even independent of the
General Clauses Act, it is firmly established that unless a new statute
expressly or by necessary implication says so, it will not be presumed
that it deprives a person of an accrued right. On the other hand, a law
which is procedural in nature, and does not affect the rights, has to be
held to be retrospectively applicable. The question is whether the
appellant has been deprived of an accrued right or privilege in the
present case. It is true that the appellant earlier could file an application
even more than six months after the expiry of the period of limitation,
but can this be treated to be a right which the appellant had acquired.
The answer is in the negative. The claim to compensation which the
appellant was entitled to, by reason of the accident was certainly
enforceable as a right. So far the period of limitation for commencing a
legal proceeding is concerned, it is adjectival in nature, and has to be
governed by the new Act -- subject to two conditions. If under the
repealing Act the remedy suddenly stands barred as a result of a shorter
period of limitation, the same cannot be held to govern the case,
otherwise the result will be to deprive the suitor of an accrued right.
The second exception is where the new enactment leaves the claimant
with such a short period for commencing the legal proceeding so as to
make it unpractical for him to avail of the remedy".
5. Here in the present case the claim application has been filed about 17
years after the accident which cannot be said to be reasonable by any
stretch of imagination. There is no explanation for the delay. The
question of limitation was raised before the learned Tribunal, but
neither issues were framed on limitation matter nor any reason has been
assigned for not considering the issue of limitation matter. The object
of the 1994 Amendment Act was not intended to open the floodgate for
admitting claim cases which took place in remote antiquity. It is for this
reason that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Purohit case (supra) in no
uncertain terms held that claimant must approach the Tribunal within a
reasonable time. I find and hold that the claim application was filed
after unreasonable delay with respect to the accident that took place
before the Amendment Act came into force under the 1939 Act and
therefore was hit by limitation.
The impugned judgment and award is not sustainable and is
accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed. The Insurance Company
is permitted to withdraw the statutory amount. Consequently I.A. No.
941 of 2022 stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 23rd February, 2022
AFR / AKT
