Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010007552025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/21/2025 NAMI BEGUM W/O- MD. ELIOUS HUSSAIN HAZARIKA, R/O- WARD NO. 8, N.T. ROAD, P.O. AND P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, PIN- 787001, ASSAM VERSUS NABAJYOTI DAS AND 2 ORS. (OWNER), S/O- BHUDHAR DAS, R/O- WARD NO. 3, NORTH LAKHIMPUR TOWN, P.O. AND P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 787001. 2:HEEM MALAY DAS (DRIVER) S/O- NABAJYOTI DAS R/O- WARD NO. 3 NORTH LAKHIMPUR TOWN P.O. AND P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787001. 3:SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. JORHAT BRANCH ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER (INSURER) 3RD FLOOR CRYSTAL SR PLAZA OPP. BANK OF BARODA GAR ALI JORHAT-785001 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B ACHARYYA, MS. M ACHARYYA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R GOSWAMI, R M BAROOAH(R-1,2),MR A CHALIHA (R- 1,2),MR. B GOGOI(R-1,2),MR M BHUYAN(R-1,2),MS. P BORTHAKUR,MS. M SAIKIA Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 23.04.2026 Heard Ms. M. Acharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 2. This petition, under Section 115 of the CPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred by the petitioner for setting aside/quashing the order dated 30.11.2024, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur (Tribunal hereinafter), in Misc. Case No. 09/2023, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 3. Notably, vide impugned order dated 30.11.2024, the learned Tribunal has rejected the petition, filed by the petitioner herein for condoning the delay of 474, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in filing the claim petition for compensation, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act hereinafter). 4. Ms. Acharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein met with an accident on 22.08.2021, while she was travelling in a Maruti Suzuki Baleno, bearing registration No. AS-07-Q-7199, which was insured with SBI General Insurance Company Limited and the said insurance policy was valid from 14.01.2020, up-to 13.01.2023. 4.1. Ms. Acharyya further submits that there was delay in filing the claim petition, for which, she has filed an application for condoning the delay of 474 days along with the claim petition. Upon the said application, the learned Tribunal has Page No.# 3/5 registered a case, being Misc. Case No. 09/2023 and issued notice to the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 & 3. Then, the opposite parties have entered appearance and filed their written objection and thereafter, vide impugned order dated 30.11.2024, the learned Tribunal has dismissed the application. 4.2. Ms. Acharyya also submits that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for delay in filing the claim petition and that Section 166(3) of the MV Act came into force with effect from 01.04.2022 and as such, the period of limitation of 6 months cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner. 4.3. Ms. Acharyya further submits that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in MAC Appeal No. 30/2021, vide order dated 12.12.2024, clearly held to that effect and as such, the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and therefore, it is contended to interfere with the same. 5. Per-contra, Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, fairly submits that the accident took place prior to coming into force of the amended Act and as such, the period of limitation of 6 months is not applicable in the present case. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, submits that he has no objection in the event of allowing this petition. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order dated 30.11.2024. 8. It appears that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in MAC Appeal No. 30/2021, has held that the amendment of Sub-Section 3 to Section 166 of the MV Act came into force with effect from 01.04.2022. It also appears that in the said case the notification dated 25.02.2022, issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, was referred, which is read as under:- Page No.# 4/5 NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 25th February, 2022 S.O. 895(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2) of section 1 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (32 of 2019), the central Government hereby appoints the 1st day of April, 2022 as the date on which the following provisions of the said Act shall come into force, namely:- Sl. No. Sections 1. Section 50; 2. Section 51; 3. Section 52; 4. Section 53; 5. Section 54; 6. Section 55; 7. Section 56; 8. Section 57; and 9. Section 93. 8.1. It is to be noted here that in the said case, the accident took place on 03.05.2019, prior to the enforcement of the amended act and therefore, it was held that Section 166(3) of the MV Act is not applicable in that case and thereafter, directed the learned Tribunal to proceed with the claim petition in accordance with law. 9. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the accident took place on 22.08.2021 and from the Notification dated 25.02.2022, it appears that amended provision of Sub-Section 3 to Section 166 of the MV Act came into force with effect from 01.04.2022 and no retrospective effect is given to the said provision. Page No.# 5/5 10. In that view of the matter, the bar, imposed by Sub-Section 3 to Section 166 of the amended MV Act, would not be applicable in the present case. 11. Accordingly, taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, this Court is of the view that the finding of the learned Tribunal, in paragraph No. 16 of the impugned order dated 30.11.2024, is illegal and arbitrary and on such count, the same requires interference of this Court. 12. In the result, this CRP stands allowed. The impugned order dated 30.11.2024, stands set aside and quashed. 13. The learned Tribunal is directed to proceed with the claim petition in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant