JUDGMENT
A.K. Gohil, J.
1. Claimants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award dated 25-6-2003 passed by First Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ashoknagar, in claim Case No. 22/2003, where by the Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the claimants on the ground that it is barred by limitation.
2. In this case the incident took place on 7-3-1993 and in that accident deceased Pistabai died. Deceased Pistabai was the daughter of the appellants. Thereafter on 15-11-2002 claimants have filed the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Claims Tribunal considered this aspect of the matter that the claim petition has been filed after lapse of 9 years and 8 months and dismissed the claim petition placing reliance on a Division Bench decision in the case of Vinod v. Manoj and Anr. 2002 (II) Durghatna Muavja Prakashika 463 and also considering the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya , wherein the Supreme Court has considered the question of limitation as the petition was pending before the Claims Tribunal. Against dismissal of the Claim petition, the appellants have filed this appeal.
3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award.
4. Shri R.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellants placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma and Anr. 2003 (6) Supreme 701, submitted that in the said case the accident took place on 18-12-1989 and Claimant suffered injuries in the accident and thereafter filed Claim petition on 2-11-1995. The Claims Tribunal granted compensation and the insurance company raised the question of limitation before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has held that in the light of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act which are being part of the beneficial Legislation, the Tribunal has rightly entertained the petition and held that the Claim petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation after amendment in the Act of 1988 and, dismissed the appeal filed by the insurance company. Therefore, his submission is that the learned Tribunal has committed illegality in rejecting the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and prayed that it be held that the Claim petition is maintainable as there is no limitation after the amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act, which came into force w.e.f. 14-11-1994 and the award be set aside and the case be remanded back to the Claims Tribunal for decision on merits.
5. In reply, learned Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned award and submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of C. Padma and another (supra), is based on the analogy of a decision in the case of Dhannalal (supra), and the case of Dhannalal was pending when the amendment came into force. Therefore, in that circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that if the cases were pending and the question of limitation was involved, the petition should not be dismissed on the ground of limitation, as during the pendency of the petition the amendment under Section 166 came into force w.e.f. 14-11-1994.
6. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we have considered the rival submissions made by the Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as well as the law Laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of C. Padma and another (supra).
7. There is no dispute that in the case of C. Padma and another (supra), the accident took place on 18-12-1989 and the Claimants sustained bodily injuries. The Claim petition was filed on 2-11-1995, after the amendment which came in force w.e.f. 14-11-1994. The same was accepted by the Claims Tribunal and after rejecting the plea of limitation raised by the respondent Insurance Co. and awarded the compensation of Rs. 45,000/-. The revision filed before the High Court was also dismissed and thereafter the appeal was preferred by the Insurance Co. before the Supreme Court. After considering the submissions the Supreme Court has held that a Claim petition cannot be dismissed on that ground. When Sub-section (3) of Section 166 has been omitted by amendment 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 petition was barred by time when Sub-section (3) of Section 16 was in force. It need not be impressed that Parliament from time to time has introduced amendments in order to protect the interests of the victims of the accidents and their heirs if the victims die. One such amendment has been introduced in the Act by Amendment Act 54 of 1994 by substituting Sub-section (6) of Section 158, which was also considered and the Supreme Court further held as under:
Firstly, such an Act like Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, if otherwise the Claim is found genuine. Secondly, it is a self contained Act which prescribes mode of filing the application, procedure to be followed and award to be made. The Parliament, in its wisdom, realised the grave injustice and injury being caused to the heirs and legal representatives of the victims who suffer bodily injuries/die in accidents, by rejecting their Claim petitions at the threshold on the ground of limitation, and purposely deleted Sub-section (3) of Section 166, which provided the period of limitation for filing the Claim petitions and this being the intendment of the Legislature to give effective relief to the victims and the families of the motor accidents untrammeled by the technicalities of the limitation, invoking of Article 137 of the Limitation Act would defeat the intendment of the Legislature.
8. Therefore, considering the law Laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of C. Padma and another (supra), we hold that the Claim petition is maintainable as there was no limitation when the Claim petition was filed on 15-11-2002. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, we allow this appeal, set aside the award dated 25-6-2003 passed by the Claims Tribunal and remand the case to the Claims Tribunal to decide the same on merits. Parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 15th February, 2007. Thereafter the Tribunal shall proceed to decide the Claim in accordance with law. Office is directed to return the record of the Claims Tribunal so as to reach the Claims Tribunal on or before 15th February, 2007.
9. With the aforesaid direction, this appeal is allowed. In view of the above, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.