JUDGMENT O. P. Garg, J.
1. In these three connected writ petitions, a common question of law arises, whether the claim petitions under the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of the accidental death which had occurred on 8.2.1991 filed on 19.4.1997 can be thrown out merely on the ground that they are barred by time.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Smt. Partima wife of the petitioner Ravindra Kumar Kapoor and the mother of the petitioner Km. Isha Kapoor and Nimish Kapoor lost her life in a road accident which had occurred on 8.2.1991 at 5.30 p.m. A first information repot of the accident was lodged and case Crime No: 71 of 1991 under Sections 279/338/427 and 304A, I.P.C. was registered at P. S. Govind Nagar. Kanpur. This accident gave rise to the three claim petitions aforesaid. Respondent No. 3, Arvind Kumar is the owner of the vehicle while respondent No. 2, is the Oriental Insurance Company with which the vehicle involved in the accident was insured. The three claim petitions were filed on 19.4.1997. The learned Tribunal below, i.e., VIIth Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar dismissed all the three claim petitions on 8.1.1999 accepting the objection taken by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that the petitions were barred by time. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have come forward before this Court to invoke its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that the impugned order dated 8.1.1999 be quashed and the Tribunal below be directed to decide the three claim petitions on merits.
3. Heard Sri A. C. Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel. The learned Tribunal below has come to the conclusion that since the accident had taken place in the year 1991, i.e., before the omission of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act, claim petitions could not be entertained in the year 1997. In order to fortify his conclusion, the learned Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jibra Khan v. Shiv Charan and others. 1998 (2) TAC 700. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed and criticized the finding of the Tribunal below on the ground that it has not taken into consideration the well established proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhannalal v. D. P. Vijayyarglya and others, AIR 1996 SC 2155, as well as the subsequent decision in the case of New India Insurance Company Limited v. Ramesh Bhai C. Patel and others, 1998 (i) JCLR 418 (SC). The learned standing counsel is not in a position to repel the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. There is no doubt about the fact that the petitioner has brought claim petitions under Section 166 of the Act for compensation on account of the death of Smt. Pratima in a fatal accident which has taken place on 8.2.1991. It is also an indubitable fact that the claim petitions were filed in April. 1997. Now the moot point for consideration is whether the claim petitions filed in respect of the fatal accident which had taken place in the year 1991 can be maintained after the expiry of the period of more than six years. Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act was deleted/omitted with effect from 14.11.1994 by Act No. 54 of 1994. Before the omission, subsection (3) provided as follows :
"No application for such compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident :
Provided that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of six months but not later than twelve months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in lime."
5. In view of the aforesaid provision the claim petitions before the introduction of the amending Act No. 54 of 1994 could be filed latest within a period of one year from the dale of the accident. One year's period was outside the limitation and no claim petition could be filed after the period of one year from the date of the accident. The aforesaid provision of sub-section (3) is no more on the statute book as it has been omitted for a variety of reasons. Now in view of the amending Act, the claimant is entitled to file a claim petition at any time and it cannot be thrown out on the ground of limitation. On account of the deletion of sub-section (3), now there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing the claim petition. It was suggested on behalf of the State that the amending Act of 1994 is prospective in operation and cannot be applied in respect of the accident which had taken place prior to 14.11.1994, the date on which subsection (3) came to be deleted. Similar argument was made in the case of the New India Insurance Company Limited (supra) in which the Apex Court observed that "these are mere procedural or technical objections which should not frustrate the course of justice. The object of omitting sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act to remove the bar of limitation for a claim petition is obvious." In the case of Dhannalal (supra), a submission was made before the Apex Court that the "Sword of liability of paying compensation in respect of accident caused by motor vehicle should not be permitted to hover on the head of the person owning the said vehicle and person driving such vehicle." An answer of this submission is to be found in the same decision of the Apex Court in which an example was given to explain the matter, which is as follows :
"Suppose an accident had taken place two years before 14.11.1994 when sub-section (3) was omitted from Section 166. For one reason or the other, no claim petition had been filed by the victim or the heirs of the victim till 14.11.1994. Can a claim petition be not filed after 14.11.1994 in respect of such accident? Whether a claim petition filed after 14.11.1994 can be rejected by the Tribunal on the ground of limitation saying that the period of twelve months which had been prescribed when sub-section (3) of Section 166 was in force having expired, the right to prefer the claim petition had been extinguished and shall not be revived after deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 w.e.f. 14.11.1994? According to us, the answer should be in negative. When sub-section (3) of Section 166 has been omitted, then the Tribunal has to entertain a claim petition without taking note of the date on which such accident had taken place. The claim petition cannot be thrown out on the ground that such claim petitions were barred by time when sub-section (3) of Section 166 was in force."
6. The Apex Court went on observing that the effect of the Amending Act is that w.e.f. 14.11.1994, there is no limitation for filing claims before the Tribunal in respect of any accident. It can be said that Parliament realised the grave injustice and injury which was being caused to the heirs and legal representatives of the victims who died in accidents by rejecting their claim petitions only on the ground of limitation. It is a matter of common knowledge that majority of the claimants for such compensation are ignorant about the period during which such claims should be preferred. After the death due to the accident, of the bread earner of the family, in many cases such claimants are virtually on the streets.
7. The question in hand came to be answered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Bimla Rani and others v. Om Prakash and others, 1997 (2) JCLR 246 (All), in paragraph 8 of the decision, it was observed that "After deletion of subsection (3) of Section 166, legal position is that there was no limitation at all for filing the claim petition and, therefore, the Claims Tribunal was in error in holding that despite the omission of sub-section (3) of Section 166, the limitation of twelve months will continue to operate and that was inflexible."
8. In view of the decision of the Apex Court as well as the Division Bench decision of this Court, the learned Tribunal below has committed a grave illegality in placing reliance on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Jibra Khan [supra] which cannot be said to lay down the correct law.
8. In the result. I find that the order passed by the Tribunal below dismissing the claim petitions as being barred by time is against the well established law. There is no period of limitation prescribed for filing the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, The impugned order passed in the three writ petitions is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
10. The three writ petitions are allowed and the order dated 8.1.1999 passed by the Tribunal below. VIIth Addl. District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, is hereby quashed. The learned Tribunal below shall re-register the claim petitions at their original numbers and proceed to decide them according to law on merits.