ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 1-3-93 in Claim Case No. 25/90 by Second Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhindwara, dismissing the claimant/appellant’s petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter called the “Act” for short).
2. It is now not in dispute that the claimant/appellant met with an accident on 21-9-89 by Jeep No. MP22/0119 at about 10 kms. from Village Chourai, District Chhindwara. Respondent No. 1 is the owner, respondent No. 2 was its driver and respondent No. 3 is the insurer of the of fending vehicle. As a result of the accident the claimant/appellant suffered permanent disability.
3. The claim petition was filed on 22-9-90. The learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending jeep by its driver-respondent No. 2. It was also held that the claimant/appellant has suffered permanent disability and would have been entitled to compensation of Rs. 70,600/- on account of injuries sustained by him. However, learned Tribunal held that the petition for claim was filed after the period of a day after the expiry of 12 months from the date of accident and was therefore, barred by time, in view of Section 166(3) of the Act which prior to the amendment provided that the application for compensation shall be made within six months of the occurrence of the accident and that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after expiry of the said period of 6 months but not later than 12 months, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. The Claims
Tribunal was therefore, of the view that since the application could in no case be entertained beyond the period of 12 months from the date of the accident in view of the above provision, hence the application of claimant-appellant was dismissed.
4. Only submission of the learned Counsel for the claimant/appellant was that Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act has been omitted by amendment by Act No. 54/1994 and therefore, now no limitation is prescribed for filing the claim petition. It has been submitted that as this appeal is pending the benefit of amendment by Act No. 54/1994 deleting Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act should be extended to the claimant-appellant and order of dismissal of his application for claim on the ground of limitation deserves to be set aside. To support his contention as above, learned Counsel for the claimant-appellant relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Dhannalal v. D.P, Vijayv argiya [1997 (1) MPLJ 195 (SC)].
5. The contention as above of the learned Counsel for the appellant deserves to be accepted. It is clear that limitation for filing the claim petition was 6 months as prescribed under Section 166(3) of the Act. The proviso to Section 166(3) further provided that Claims Tribunal could entertain the application after the said period of six months but not later than 12 months, if it was satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within the aforesaid period of six months. Thus, under the provisions of Section 166(3) of the Act claim petition could not be entertained after the period of 12 months from the date of accident. The said provision as noted above has now been deleted by Amending Act No. 54/94, which came into force from 14-11-94. Therefore, after the said amendment and deletion of Sub-section (3) of Section 166, now no limitation is prescribed in the Act, for preferring a claim petition. Since this appeal was preferred and was pending the claimant/appellant is entitled to the benefit of change in law effected by the aforesaid amendment.
6. It may be noted that the Apex Court in the case of Dhannalal (supra) has observed :–
“7. In this background now it has to be examined as to what is the effect of omission of Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act. From the Amending Act it does not appear that the said Sub-section (3) has been deleted retrospectively. But at the same time, there is nothing in the Amending Act to show that benefit of deletion of Sub-section (3) of Section 166, is not to be extended to pending claim petitions where a plea of limitation has been raised. The effect of deletion of Sub-section (3) from Section 166 of the Act can be tested by an illustration. Suppose an accident had taken place two years before 14-11-94, when Sub-section (3) was omitted from Section 166. For one reason or the other no claim petition has been filed by
the victim or the heirs of the victim till 14-11-94. Can a claim petition be not filed after 14-11-94, in respect of such accident ? Whether a claim petition filed after 14-11-94, 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. 14-11-94 ? 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 petitions 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. It need not be impressed that Parliament from time to time has introduced amendments in the old Act as well as in the new Act in order to protect the interest of the victims of the accidents and their heirs if the victims die. One such amendment has been introduced in the Act by the aforesaid Amendment Act 54 of 1994, by substituting Sub-section (6) of Section 158, which provides :
“As soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this section is completed by a police officer, the officer incharge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of recording of information or, as the case may be, on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof of the concerned insurer, and where a copy is made available to the owner, of such report, forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and Insurer.”
In view of Sub-section (6) of Section 158 of the Act the officer incharge of the police station is enjoined to forward a copy of information/report regarding the accident to the Tribunal having jurisdiction. A copy thereof has also to be forwarded to the concerned insurer. It also requires that where a copy is made available to the owner of the vehicle, he shall within thirty days or receipt of such copy forward the same to the Claims Tribunal and insurer. In this background, the deletion of Sub-section (3) from Section 166 should be given full effect so that the object of deletion of said section by the Parliament is not defeated. If a victim of the accident or heirs of the deceased victim can prefer claim for compensation although not being preferred earlier because of the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed, how the victim or the heirs of the deceased shall be in a worse position if the question of condonation of delay in filing the claim petition is pending either before the
Tribunal, High Court or the Supreme Court. The present appeal is one such case. The appellant has been pursuing from Tribunal to this Court. His right to get compensation in connection with the accident in question is being resisted by the respondents on the ground of delay in filing the same. If he had not filed any petition for claim till 14-11-1994, in respect of the accident which took place on 4-12-1990, in view of the Amending Act he became entitled to file such claim petition, the period of limitation having been deleted, the claim petition which has been filed and is being pursued up to this Court cannot be thrown out on the ground of limitation.”
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 the 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 or this Court. In such cases, the benefit of amendment of Sub-section (3) of Section 166 should be extended.”
7. In view of the law laid down as above, the application for compensation filed by the claimant-appellant cannot be dismissed as barred by limitation. The application claiming compensation deserves to be allowed. The learned Claims Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 70,600/-. The amount of compensation as above appears to be just in view of the material and evidence placed on record. Accordingly the claim for compensation of the claimant/appellant, to the above extent deserves to be allowed. Since the claimant-appellant had filed the application belatedly resulting in its long pendency for last about 12 years, it appears just and proper to grant interest on the above amount of compensation for half the period.
8. Accordingly the appeal and the claim petition of the claimant-appellant is allowed. He is awarded compensation of Rs. 70,600/- (Rupees Seventy thousand six hundred). It is further directed that on the aforesaid amount interest shall be payable from 1-1-96 till deposit/payment of the above amount @ 9% per annum. Cost of this appeal shall be borne by the parties as incurred.