limitation period of six months for filing a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) has not come into force as of now.

Judgement Link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DygrdI18eTgeJMlQ6YwcCiInPkl6YYfy/view?usp=drivesdk

Head Note

MACT should decide claims as per unamended Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act as amendments on limitation yet to be notified: Allahabad HC

"I have enquired from Sri Ojha, State Law Officer and the position is that 166 (3) has not been brought on the statute book.....166 of 1988 Act would still govern the litigation as of today," the order said.

The Allahabad High Court recently clarified that since the amendments proposed to Section 166 (Application for compensation) of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) of 1988 are yet to be notified, the proposed limitation period of six months for filing a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) has not come into force as of now.

Therefore, MACT should proceed to decide claims as per the existing Section 166 of the MV Act, a single-judge Bench of Justice Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker ruled.

"The provisions of section 166 of the 2019 Amendment Act has several implications which can be flagged, namely, limitation, which was not there, has been introduced.The position is that 166 (3) (contemplated by the 2019 amendment) has not been brought on the statute book. What is the position is that 166 of 1988 Act would still govern the litigation as of today," the court held.

The High Court was hearing an appeal challenging an order passed by MACT dismissing a claim petition on the ground that it was filed after the limitation period of six months.

The accident had taken place in December 2019 and the claim petition was filed in August 2020. The limitation period of six months as per the amended Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act had passed.

While relying on the Motor Vehicles Act (Amendment) Act, 2019 the Court noted that Sections 50 to 57 of the Amendment Act were yet to be notified. These Sections 50 to 57 of the Amendment Act relate to Sections 140 to 144, Sections 145 to 164, Section 165, Section 166, Section 168, Sections 169, Section 170 and Section 173, respectively of the principal Act, the High Court noted.

"Since, Sections 50 to 57 of the Amendment Act are not notified, claimant/s can still prefer an application u/s 140 of the Principal Act independently or along with an application for compensation u/s 166 of the Principal Act or in alternative claimant/s can prefer an application u/s 163-A of the Principal Act for compensation based on the structured formula," the judgment said.

After an inquiry with Sri Ojha, counsel for the State as well as the Amicus Curiae, the court concluded that the position was that Section 166 (3) was not brought on the statute book and section 166 of the 1988 Act would still hold the field as of today.

Reprimanding Virjendra Kumar Singh, Presiding Office, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to be more vigilant in future while deciding claim petitions under a beneficial legislation, the court said:

"In view of the above, I have no hesitation in quashing and setting aside the Judgment/order impugned. Claim petition is ordered to be restored to file of Tribunal. The Tribunal shall proceed as per 166 read with Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as till date amended section dealing with Chapter X, XI XII of the act have not been brought on statute books substituting the earlier provision."

It also ordered that the order be circulated to all MACTs so as to avoid any fallacy creeping into future proceedings.