# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`**
## **`PRESENT`**
```
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
```
```
MONDAY, THE 19[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 30TH MAGHA, 1945
```
```
MACA NO. 1067 OF 2023
```
```
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.10.2022 IN O.P(M.V) NO.653/2019 OF
```
```
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM
```
## **`APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:`**
```
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD
N.S.TOWERS, NEAR STADIUM BUS STAND, COIMBATORE ROAD,
PALAKKAD(DIST.) REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE , M.G ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN
SRI.JACOB MATHEW KAITHALIL
```
## **`RESPONDENTS / PETITIONERS:`**
```
1MARIYUMMA ALIAS MARIYA,
AGED 62 YEARS, W/O LATE MUHAMMED (MOTHER OF DECEASED
HABEEBULLA), RESIDING AT PATHARI HOUSE, KANJIRATHADAM,
ARAKKUPARAMBU POST, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
2SABIRA, AGED 35 YEARS
W/O.ABDUL LATHEEF (SISTER OF DECEASED HABEEBULLA),
RESIDING AT CHELAKKODAN HOUSE, PUTHUR,
THAZHEKKODE POST, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
3HAJIRA, AGED 28 YEARS, W/O HAMZA,
(SISTER OF DECEASED HABEEBULLA),
RESIDING AT KALIKKANDATH HOUSE, ATTASSERY, PIN - 679513
4AFEELA, AGED 28 YEARS, W/O MUHAMMED RESHEED,
(SISTER OF DECEASED HABEEBULLA),
RESIDING AT KUPPODAN HOUSE, MATTARAKKAL,
THAZHEKKODE POST, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322
BY ADV.SMT.SHIFA LATHEEF
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
```
```
ADMISSION ON 19.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
```
```
M.A.C.A.No.1067 of 2023
```
```
2
```
## **JUDGMENT**
## **Dated this the 19[th] day of February, 2024**
This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 20.10.2022 in O.P(M.V) No.653/2019, granting compensation in favour of the claimants. In the Original Petition, compensation was sought by the mother and siblings for the death of Mr.Habibulla in a motor accident.
2. It is true that in the written statement filed by the 3[rd] respondent/insurer, contention was raised against the belated filing of the claim petition. But the claim petition was filed at a point of time when the period of limitation was taken away from the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the M.V Act’) by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act 54 of 1994) with effect from 10[th] September, 1994. The
```
M.A.C.A.No.1067 of 2023
```
```
3
```
argument of the learned counsel was that explanation was not furnished by the claimants for filing of the Original Petition seeking compensation after five years of the motor accident.
3. The learned counsel has relied on **National Insurance Company Limited vs. Jojo.T.G** reported in 2019 ICO 2029, wherein a claim petition preferred by an injured after nine years of the motor accident was allowed by the Tribunal, but the award when taken up in challenge before a learned Single Bench of this Court, was set aside observing it as a stale claim. In the decision cited, challenge was raised by the 3[rd] respondent before the Tribunal that the Original Petition seeking compensation was not maintainable, for being filed after 9 years of the motor accident.
4. The learned Single Judge has extracted the reasons stated by the claimant in the Original Petition seeking compensation for it’s filing after 9 years, as
```
M.A.C.A.No.1067 of 2023
```
```
4
```
## follows:
“The petitioner was fully bed ridden for one year from the date of the accident and was partially bed ridden for next 2 years and was with highly restricted movement for further 3 years. Thus, for 5 years from the date of the accident he was fully disabled to work and even now he is not able to walk freely and for carrying any weight etc. Thus, his physical life is very much spoiled. Still, his foot is not completely cured to its' original position with sufficient flesh and skin with required firmness. He also suffered great pain and suffering during these days and still continues that.”
After observing the above reasons as true and correct, the learned Single Judge arrived at a finding that the Original Petition, filed after a period of 9 years, is a stale claim and accordingly dismissed it.
5. When the Parliament in it’s wisdom has taken away the period of limitation for preferring a petition seeking compensation from a Statute, the Court cannot act against that and say that the claim petition ought to have been filed within a reasonable period. When the documents relating to the motor accident produced alongwith the petition seeking compensation are
```
M.A.C.A.No.1067 of 2023
```
```
5
```
otherwise proper and correct, the claim of a victim of the motor accident is liable to be considered by the Tribunal in his favour. When limitation period for preferring a claim petition has been taken away from the M.V. Act, the Tribunal or the insurer shall not insist the party/injured to furnish explanation for the period for which the filing of the petition was lagged after the motor accident.
6. The grounds raised in the Appeal Memorandum being relevant in the context are extracted hereunder:-
“A) The award of the Learned Tribunal is against law and facts and evidence in this case.
B) The Learned Tribunal went wrong in allowing the claim petition holding that no limitation is prescribed in Section 166 of M.V Act.
C) The Learned Tribunal did not consider the dictum laid down by this Hon’ble Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Jojo, 2019(4) KLT 127.
D) The Learned Tribunal ought to have found that no reason was given for not filing the claim petition in time.
## **`M.A.C.A.No.1067 of 2023`**
```
6
```
E) The Learned Tribunal went wrong in entertaining a stale claim.”
7. All the above grounds are related to the period of limitation which originally was there in the M.V. Act, but was taken away later by way of amendment. Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the M.V. Act as it stood originally reads:
“No application for such compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident”
The amendment brought in the M.V. Act in the year 1994 is to the following effect :
“53. In Section 166 of the Principal Act,a) xxx b) Sub-Section (3) shall be omitted; c) xxx”
8. Context being so, this Court is of the firm view that when limitation period for preferring a claim for compensation was taken away from the M.V.Act by the Parliament in it’s wisdom, the petitioner/victim of
```
M.A.C.A.No.1067 of 2023
```
```
7
```
motor accident is not bound to explain the reasons for not filing it immediately.
9. Claimant if injured in a motor accident has to establish by cogent and reliable materials produced that he had sustained the injuries and suffered difficulties on
account of that. He has to produce records of treatment tallying the date on which the motor accident
was occurred. If the petitioners are legal representatives of a victim of a motor accident who died consequently, are liable to establish by cogent and reliable materials relevant for the date of the motor accident and date of death of the victim and that death of the victim was resulted only from the injuries sustained in the motor accident. When an Original Petition is filed supported by materials having proximate nexus with the date of the motor accident, the Tribunal is bound to entertain it and to award just and reasonable compensation the party deserves. The
```
M.A.C.A.No.1067 of 2023
```
```
8
```
learned counsel for the appellant is not justified in canvassing for dismissal of a claim petition which is in order otherwise and supported by reliable materials, for want of explanation from the party for the lag occurred from his side in filing it. The party in the legal scenario available now is undoubtedly not obliged to state reasons for preferring the claim petition after six months.
10. The dictum relied on by the appellant has no relevance in the context and therefore is discarded. The Tribunal has correctly entertained the Original Petition seeking compensation and passed the award now under challenge. There is every reason to maintain the impugned award for want of any other challenge.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed _in limine_ .
Sd/-
## **MARY JOSEPH**
**JUDGE**
NAB
