IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 1355 of 2001(S)
1. .R.SANTHAKUMARI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE MANAGING PARTNER
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN
For Respondent :SRI.A.R.GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :23/06/2008
O R D E R
J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ.
=====================
M.F.A.No.1355 of 2001
=====================
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008.
JUDGMENT
Koshy,J.
The mother of the appellant was alleged to have died in a
motor accident on 25.9.1987. The appellant and respondents 4, 5
and 6, grand mother, father and another sister filed O.P.No.764
of 1991 before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the same
accident. The above O.P. was dismissed on 8.11.1993 on the
ground of time bar. It is also stated that the grand mother along
with the appellant and others filed a petition, O.P.No.911 of
1991, which was also dismissed. It is further stated that the
appeal filed from the above awards was also dismissed by this
Court. It is true that Section 166(3) prescribing time bar was
deleted from the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with effect from
14.11.1994. The Apex Court held that the benefit of the
amendment can be extended to pending cases, but it was very
MFA 1355/01 -: 2 :-
clearly held that the claim rejected on the ground of time bar
cannot be reopened. The Apex Court in paragraph 8 in
Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya – 1996(2) K.L.T. 283 held as
follows:
“8.The matter will be different if any claimant
having filed a petition for claim beyond time which
has been rejected by the Tribunal or the High Court,
the claimant does not challenge the same and allows
the said judicial order to become final. The aforesaid
Amending Act shall be of no help to such claimant.
The reason being that a judicial order saying that
such petition of claim was barred by limitation has
attained finality. But that principle will not govern
cases where the dispute as to whether petition for
claim having been filed beyond the period of twelve
months from the date of the accident is pending
consideration either before the Tribunal, High Court
of this Court. In such cases, the benefit of
amendment of sub-s.(3) of S.166 should be
extended.”
It is contended that the father was negligent in not filing a
petition properly. The subsequent petition filed by the grand
mother, appellant and father was dismissed because of the
MFA 1355/01 -: 3 :-
dismissal of the petition by the father. On the facts of this case,
the matter has become final and the Tribunal has correctly
rejected the petition filed by the appellant.
The appeal is dismissed.
J.B.Koshy,
Judge.
P.N.Ravindran,
Judge.
ess 27/6