Orissa High Court
Gitanjali Dash And Anr vs Puskar Mahapatra And Anr on 13 March, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
MACA No.1046 of 2024
An appeal under Section-173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
..................
Gitanjali Dash and Anr. .... Appellants
-versus-
Puskar Mahapatra and Anr.
.... Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. A. Dash, Advocate
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing:13.03.2025 & Date of Judgment: 13.03.2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Perused the tracking report. Since notice issued to
respondent no.1 has been duly served, notice on
Respondent No.1 is treated as sufficient.
// 2 //
3. The present appeal has been filed by the
appellants challenging the impugned judgment dated
25.09.2024 passed by the learned District Judge-
cum-1st MACT, Jagatsinghpur in MAC Case No.254
of 2021.
4. It is contended that the appellants-claimants
seeking grant of compensation on account of death of
their son in a road accident which took place on
02.01.2010, filed MAC Case No.254 of 2021 in the
file of learned District Judge-cum-1stM.A.C.T.,
Jagatsinghpur. The proceeding in question was
initiated U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The
Tribunal initially when rejected the claim with
passing of a nil award on 12.12.2023, the appellants
herein challenging such order of the tribunal,
approached this Court in MACA No.1260 of 2023.
4.1. It is contended that this Court vide judgment
dated 06.05.2024 while allowing the appeal, quashed
the judgment dated 12.12.2023 so passed by the
// 3 //
Tribunal in MAC Case No.254 of 2021. While setting
aside the same, this Court directed the learned
Tribunal to dispose of the matter afresh by giving due
opportunity of hearing to both the sides.
4.2. It is contended that on such remand of the
matter, the Tribunal took up the issue and found
that the appellants-claimants are entitled to get
compensation amount of Rs.2,92,328/- on different
counts. But while holding so, the claim application
was dismissed vide the impugned order dated
25.09.2024 on the ground that it is time barred.
4.3. Learned counsel for the appellants
contended that the Tribunal came to such a
conclusion that the claim application is time barred
inter alia on the ground that there is delay in lodging
the claim petition. The tribunal on the earlier
occasion relying on the amendment carried to Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 vide Amended Act, 2019 rejected
the claim vide judgment dated 12.12.2023. But this
// 4 //
Court after going through the relevant provision, was
pleased to set aside the judgment dated 12.12.2023
vide its judgment dated 06.05.2024 in MACA
No.1260 of 2023 and remanded the matter for fresh
adjudication.
4.4. Therefore, on the face of such order passed
by this Court in MACA No.1260 of 2023, the Tribunal
ought not to have held the claim of the appellants as
time barred, while rejecting the application vide the
impugned order dated 25.09.2024.
4.5. Learned counsel for the appellants with
regard to filing of such claim application contended
that initially under the provisions contained under
Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, no
application for such compensation was entertainable
unless it is made within 6 (six) months of the
occurrence of the accident. However, as provided in
the proviso to Section-110-A(3) of the 1939 Act, the
Tribunal may entertain the application after expiry of
// 5 //
6 (six) months, if it is satisfied that the applicant was
prevented by sufficient cause in making the
application on time.
4.6. It is contended that the aforesaid provisions
contained under the 1939 Act remained valid till
01.07.1989, when the MV Act, 1988 came into force.
As provided under Section 166 (3) of the MV Act,
1988, similar provision was also made that no
application for such compensation shall be
entertained unless it is made within 6(six) months of
the occurrence of the accident. However, provision
was made that the Tribunal may entertain the
application after expiry of the period of 6 (six) months
but not later than 12 months, if it is satisfied that the
applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for
making the application in time.
4.7. It is contended that the aforesaid provisions
contained under Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicle
Act, 1988 remained in force till 14.11.1994, when the
// 6 //
provisions contained under Section 166(3) of the Act
was amended vide Amended Act, 1994. While
amending, Sub-Section-3 of Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicle Act, the provision regarding making of the
application within 6 (six) months of the accident, was
omitted and the amendment came into force w.e.f.
14.11.1994.
4.8. It is accordingly contended that in view of
the amendment carried out to Section 166(3) of the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 vide the Amended Act, 1994
which came into force w.e.f. 14.11.1994, no period of
limitation was prescribed for making an application
under Section 166 of the Act. It is also contended
that the aforesaid provision regarding filing of any
claim application without having any prescribed
period of limitation remained in force till Amendment
was carried out to Section 166 (3) of the Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988, vide the 2022 Amended Act which
came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2022. As per the 2022
// 7 //
Amended Act, it was again provided that no
application for compensation under Section 166 of
the Act shall be entertained unless it is made within
6 (six) months of occurrence of the accident.
4.9. Learned counsel for the appellants
accordingly contended that in view of the Amendment
carried out to Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act
vide the Amended Act, 1994, there was no prescribed
period of limitation in making a claim application
under the said provision, till the same was amended
vide the 2022 Amended Act, which was introduced
w.e.f. 01.04.2022. It is accordingly contended that for
the period from 14.11.1994 to 31.03.2022, no period
of limitation was prescribed to make an application
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Since in
the instant case the accident had taken place on
02.01.2010 and the claim application was filed on
21.12.2021, no delay can be attributed in filing the
// 8 //
application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle
Act.
4.10. It is accordingly contended that since no
period limitation was there for filing of application
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act during
the period from 14.11.1994 to 31.03.2022, the view
of the learned Tribunal that the claim petition is time
barred is not sustainable in the eye of law.
4.11. It is also contended that since the Tribunal
found that the appellants are entitled to get
compensation amount of Rs.2,92,328/- and the
offending vehicle was also found duly insured with
Respondent No.2, Respondent No.2 is liable to pay
the compensation amount so assessed by the
Tribunal, however, with interest as due and
admissible. It is also contended that the Tribunal
while assessing compensation at Rs.2,92,328/-,
since did not allow any interest on such
compensation amount, this Court may allow interest
// 9 //
to be paid by the Respondent No.2 along with the
compensation amount, so assessed by the Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-
Company on the other hand contended that the claim
application filed by the appellants was earlier rejected
vide judgment dated 12.12.2023 and the same was
carried to this Court in MACA No.1260 of 2023. This
Court vide judgment dated 6.5.2024 though was
inclined to set aside judgment dated 12.12.2023, but
while setting aside the same with remand of the
matter, observe that a response should be filed by
the appellants indicating therein that the ground for
which the claim application could not be filed for
around 11 years. The finding of this Court in
Paragraph-5 reads as follows:
"In other words, the Court arrives at
a conclusion that the learned Tribunal failed
to take judicial notice of the amended Act
having been introduced w.e.f. 1st April,
2022 and hence, therefore, has committed a
wrong. At the same time, the conclusion of
the Court is that since there is no evidence
on record on delay of twelve years
notwithstanding absence of any such
// 10 //
limitation under Section 166(3) of M.C. Act,
learned Tribunal is required to consider it
with a response of the claimants appellants
as to if the claim to be a live and surviving
one so as to justice grant of compensation."
5.1. It is contended that in terms of the order
passed by this Court vide judgment dated 6.5.2024,
no response was made by the appellants explaining
the delay in not filing the application for around 11
years. The Tribunal though assessed the
compensation and found that the offending vehicle
has not violated any policy condition and held the
Respondent No.2 liable to pay the compensation, but
dismissed the application on the ground that it is
time barred as there is delay in lodging the claim
application and no response was filed by the
appellants. It is accordingly contended that the
impugned order has been rightly passed, and it
requires no interference.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and considering the submissions made, this Court
// 11 //
finds that the claim application was filed by the
claimant respondent on 21.12.2021 in respect of an
accident which had taken place on 2.1.2010. It is not
disputed at the bar that limitation period for filing of
claim application U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicle Act by
way of the 2022 amendment, was brought into effect
w.e.f. 1.4.2022.
6.1. It is also not disputed at the bar that there
was no period of limitation prescribed in respect of
making an application U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicle
Act during the period from 14.11.1994 to
31.03.2022. In the case in hand, the application was
filed by the appellants on 21.12.2021 in respect of an
accident, which had taken place on 02.01.2010.
Since by virtue of the amendment carried to the
provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section-166 of the
M.V. Act vide the Amended Act, 1994 was notified on
14.11.1994, there remained no period of limitation,
till the new amendment was carried out by virtue of
// 12 //
the Amended Act, 2022, notified on 01.04.2022.
Therefore, as per the considered view of this Court,
the claim application could not have been held as
time barred.
6.2. Even though in terms of the judgment
passed by this Court in MACA No.1260 of 2023, no
response was made by the appellants explaining the
delay, but in view of the provisions contained
U/s.166 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, the same is not
fatal and the Tribunal on the face of such statutory
provision which remained in force for the period from
14.11.1994 to 31.03.2022 could not have held the
application as time barred.
6.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court
is inclined to quash the impugned judgment dated
judgment dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned
District Judge-cum-1st MACT, Jagatsinghpur in MAC
Case No.254 of 2021. While quashing the same and
since the offending vehicle was having all the valid
// 13 //
documents and there was no violation of any policy
condition, held the Respondent No.2-company liable
to pay the compensation amount so assessed by the
tribunal at Rs. 2,92,328/-. Since no interest has
been awarded by the Tribunal, this Court held the
appellants liable to get interest @ 6% per annum
payable from the date of application, i.e., 21.12.2021
till its realisation.
6.4. Therefore, this Court directs respondent no.2
to deposit the compensation amount of
Rs.2,92,328/- along with interest @ 6% per annum
payable from the date of filing of the application till
its realization before the tribunal within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On
such deposit of the amount, the tribunal shall do well
to disburse the same in favour of the appellants as
deem fit and proper and in accordance with law.
6.5. It is further observed that if the amount of
compensation along with interest as directed is not
// 14 //
deposited within the aforesaid time period,
compensation amount of Rs.2,92,328/- shall carry
interest @ 7% per annum from the date of expiry of
the period of 8 (eight) weeks till it is deposited.
7. The MACA accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 13th of March, 2025/Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
