Rejin R.S vs Binsi Saheed Anas
2021 Latest Caselaw 16900 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
  THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 21ST SRAVANA, 1943
                         OP (MAC) NO. 58 OF 2021
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN OP(MV):

    1        REJIN R.S
             AGED 20 YEARS
             S/O. RAVEENDRAN, R.S. BHAVAN, MOORTHIKAVU,
             KATTUMPURAM P.O, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
             695608.

             BY ADVS.
             A.RAJASIMHAN
             AYYAPPADAS V
             VYKHARI.K.U

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV):

    1        BINSI SAHEED ANAS
             S/O. SAHEED ANAS, KAITHAKKATTIL THEKKUMKARA PUTHEN
             VEEDU, KALLARA, KALLARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
             695608.

    2        SHAMNAD V.S
             S/O. VAHAB, KAITHAKKATTIL VEEDU, KALLARA P.O,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695608.

    3        THE MANAGER (LEGAL)
             ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE GENERAL CO.LTD, AMRITHA
             TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR, OPP. MAHARAJA GROUNDS,
             40/1045/01, M.G. ROAD, COCHIN - 682011.

    THIS      OP     (MAC)   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
12.08.2021,        THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 OP (MAC) NO. 58 OF 2021
                                        2




                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of August, 2021

Service is complete on third respondent.

2. The petitioner filed a petition claiming

compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, before the

MACT, Attingal, seeking compensation for the personal

injuries sustained by the injured. An objection was raised

by the office of the Tribunal that the application was filed

beyond the limitation period and hence was not

sustainable. Accordingly, the application was posted for

hearing by the learned Tribunal, as unnumbered original

petition. After hearing the claimant, by an order,

dismissed the original petition as time barred. This order

is impugned in the present proceedings.

3. The facts discernible from the records indicate

that the claim petitions was filed after six months from

the date of accident. Even the extension of time of

limitation granted by the Supreme Court with effect from

15/3/2020 for six months, due to lock down also would OP (MAC) NO. 58 OF 2021

not save the limitation, if any. The court below held the

view that by virtue of section 166 (3), as amended by the

Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, the application ought to

have been filed within six months from the date of

notification, which was 1/9/2019. It was held that the six

months period accruing since 15/3/2020 was exempted

from limitation by the Hon'ble Apex Court, until further

orders, in the light of out break of epidemic Covid 19.

Still on facts, the court found that, it would also not save

the claimant. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal dismissed

the petition holding that it was filed beyond the time

prescribed by S.166(3) of Motor Vehicles Act.

4. Assailing the above order, learned counsel for

the petitioner contended that section 166(3) of the Motor

Vehicles Act was introduced by the Motor Vehicles

(Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019). Though the above

provision was introduced, it has not been notified by

virtue of section 1 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act

2019, and hence, the above section has not come into

force. Consequently the court below committed grave OP (MAC) NO. 58 OF 2021

error by holding that the application was hit by section

166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 2019, it was argued.

5. Evidently, sub section (3) of section 166 was

introduced by section 53 of the Motor Vehicles

(Amendment) Act of 2019(32 of 2019). It provides that

"no application for compensation shall be entertained

unless it is made within six months from the date of

occurrence of the accident." The scheme of the Act shows

that the Amendment Act got the assent of the President

on 9/8/2019 and was published in the Gazette of India

dated 9/8/2019. Section 1(2) of the Amendment Act

provided that "the Act would 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 this commencement of

the Act shall be construed as a reference to the coming

into force of that provision."

6. By the notification, SO No.3110(E) of the

Ministry of Road Transport and Highways dated OP (MAC) NO. 58 OF 2021

28/8/2019, several sections of the Motor Vehicles

(Amendment) Act, 2019(32 of 2019) were brought into

force from 1 st September 2019. By another notification

dated 30/8/2019 by the Ministry of Road Transport and

Highways, number SO.3147(E), it was provided that

section 1 of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 2019

would come into force on 1 st September 2019. Then, by

virtue of the second notification, section 1 of the Act,

which provided for notification or separate notifications

for different sections, as the case may be, was brought

into effect. By the first notification referred above,

selected sections of the Amendment Act, 2019, were

brought into force with effect from 1 st September 2019.

SO No.3110(E) shows that after sections 48 and 49

referred in serial No.21, sections 58 to 73 (both inclusive)

referred in serial No.22 were brought into force.

Evidently, sections 50 to 57 of the Amendment Act

including section 53, by which section 166(3) was

inserted were not given effect to. In other words, by

notification dated 28/8/2019, though several selected OP (MAC) NO. 58 OF 2021

provisions were brought into effect, section 53 was not

brought into force. Consequently, section 53 of the

Amendment Act which introduced sub section (3) of 166

of the Parent Act has not come into force. Consequently,

the Tribunal is governed by the original Section 166 as it

stood prior to the amendment. Identical view was taken

by a single judge of the Allahabad High Court in

Shailendra Tripathi and Another v. Dharmendra

Yadav and two others by judgment dated 20/11/2020

in First Appeal No.1563/2020.

7. It seems that the learned Tribunal missed this

aspect. This court had occasion to consider few identical

orders issued by some other Tribunals. It seems that a

wrong impression remains among some of the Tribunals

that section 166 (3) has been brought into effect with

effect from 1/9/2019. In the light of the misconception of

law which led to the decision of the Tribunal which has

been clarified as above, natural sequel is that the original

petition is liable to be allowed after setting aside the

impugned order.

OP (MAC) NO. 58 OF 2021

Accordingly, the original petition is allowed.

The impugned order is set aside and the learned

Tribunal is directed to take back the application to

file and to proceed in accordance with law as

mentioned above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE SKP/12-8 OP (MAC) NO. 58 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF OP (MAC) 58/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OPMV FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL ON 13.03.2020.

EXHIBIT P2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL DATED 16.06.2020 IN UNNUMBERED OP IN CF NO.3153/2020.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE