2025:JHHC:23061 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 05 of 2024 ------ 1. Pritwanti Horo, wife of Hardugan Horro 2. Hardugan Munda @ Hardugan Horro, son of Late Arbind Horro Both are residents of Village Takarma, P.O. & P.S. Basia, District Gumla .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. Chalti Singh, son of Suraj Deo Singh, resident of Village Chalti Dhaba, Ranibandha By Pass Road, Rajganjpur, P.O. & P.S. Rajganjpur, District Sudergarah Odisha (owner of Dumper No. OR 14P 8661) 2. Ramesh Munda, son of Jhamnu Munda, resident of Village Gamhartoli, P.O. & P.S. Kolibira, District Simdega (driver of Dumper No. OR 14P 8661) 3. Arun, son of Bineshwer Singh, resident of Village Tangatoli, P.O. Agharma, P.S. Kolibira District Simdega, (general power of attorney holder of Dumper No. OR 14P 8661) .... .... .... Opposite Parties With C.M.P. No. 06 of 2024 ------ Salomi Aind, wife of Barnabash Aind residents of Village Lakarma, P.O. & P.S. Basia, District Gumla .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. Chalti Singh, son of Suraj Deo Singh, resident of Village Chalti Dhaba, Ranibandha By Pass Road, Rajganjpur, P.O. & P.S. Rajganjpur, District Sudergarah Odisha (owner of Dumper No. OR 14P 8661) 2. Ramesh Munda, son of Jhamnu Munda, resident of Village Gamhartoli, P.O. & P.S. Kolibira, District Simdega (driver of Dumper No. OR 14P 8661) 3. Arun, son of Bineshwer Singh, resident of Village Tangatoli, P.O. Agharma, P.S. Kolibira District Simdega, (general power of attorney holder of Dumper No. OR 14P 8661) .... .... .... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioners : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate For the O.P. No.1 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the O.P. No.2 : Ms. Nanda Kumari, Advocate For the O.P. No.3 : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate Order No.09 / Dated : 11.08.2025 1. Both the civil miscellaneous petitions arise out of the motor accident being MAC Case No.46 of 2023 and MAC Case No.47 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the petitioners/claimants applications under Section 166 of the MV Act has been dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation. 2. Petitioners/claimants had earlier preferred a separate cases under 2025:JHHC:23061 2 Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 being M.A.C. Case No.49 of 2016 and M.A.C. Case No.50 of 2016 which was allowed vide order dated 30th November, 2022. After disposal of the compensation case for ad interim compensation, the claim case was filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act which has been dismissed by the tribunal against which the claimants have preferred the instant civil miscellaneous petitions. Learned trial Court dismissed the claim cases on the ground that as per the 2019 amendment, there was a limitation of six months for filing claim application, whereas the cases were filed after delay of 2753 days. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that the limitation will not be applicable since the said amendment came into force on 1st April, 2022. The accident had taken place much before in 2015 and the petitioners had filed a separate claim case under Section 140 of the M.V. Act within time. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be said to be lax in pursuing his remedy for compensation case. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties opposed the petitions. It is submitted that the petitioners should have filed application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, but it was laches on the part of the petitioners to have filed a separate case under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. 5. I find merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that law of limitation will not apply in the present case as the 2019 amendment Act came into force from 01.04.2022, whereas the petitioners had earlier filed a separate case under Section 140 of the MV Act. After the disposal of these cases, the present case has been filed. Impugned order is accordingly, set aside. Both the civil miscellaneous petitions are allowed. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit