Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Virsinh Muljibhai Khadiya & Ors.

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

The petitioner, an insurance company, challenged an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Dahod which condoned a delay of 9 days in filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The accident occurred on 26.04.2022, after the 2019 amendment to the Act came into effect from 01.04.2022, which re-introduced a limitation period of six months under Section 166(3). The insurance company contended that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was inapplicable since Section 166(3) as amended is a special law fixing a specific limitation period, and thus the Tribunal had no power to condone the delay.

The High Court examined the legislative history of limitation provisions applicable to motor accident claims, tracing the provisions from Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 through the various iterations of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, including the deletion of Section 166(3) with effect from 14.11.1994 as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Dhanlal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya and Others (1996) 4 SCC 652, and the re-introduction of the limitation clause by the 2019 amendment operative from 01.04.2022.

The Court considered whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to enable the Tribunal to condone delay when a specific period of limitation is prescribed under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended, and proceeded to analyse the interplay between the special statute and the general law of limitation.

Catchwords: Motor Vehicles Act · motor accident claim · limitation period · condonation of delay · Section 166 · Section 166(3) · 2019 amendment · Section 5 Limitation Act · special law · Motor Accident Claims Tribunal · Article 227 · insurance company · JCB vehicle · fatal accident

Motor Vehicles Act and accident claims Condonation of delay