Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Tinaben Rajeshbhai Bhil

Headnote AI-drafted · Editorially reviewed

The petitioner-Insurance Company filed a Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Chhotaudepur at Bodeli, which condoned a delay of 54 days in filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The accident in question occurred on 19.02.2023, resulting in the death of the deceased, and the claimants filed MACMA No. 97 of 2023 for condonation of delay, which was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 24.06.2024.

The Insurance Company contended that Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended with effect from 01.04.2022, prescribes a fixed limitation period of six months to file a claim petition and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would not be applicable to condone any delay beyond this period, since the provision is a special law that impliedly excludes the applicability of the general law on limitation.

The High Court undertook a detailed examination of the legislative history of the limitation provisions applicable to motor accident claims, tracing the evolution from Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 through successive amendments to the 1988 Act, including the deletion of Section 166(3) with effect from 14.11.1994 and its re-introduction with effect from 01.04.2022. The Court also considered the scheme of Section 158/159 relating to deemed applications and the discretion vested in Tribunals, ultimately declining to interfere with the Tribunal's order condoning the delay.

Catchwords: Motor Vehicles Act condonation of delay Section 166 limitation period claim petition motor accident compensation Article 227 special law Limitation Act Section 5 legislative history Motor Accident Claims Tribunal