[2025:RJ-JP:23103] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2571/2024 Vijay Singh S/o Shri Bajrang Singh Rajput, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Baamlaas, P.s. Gudha Gaudji, Tehsil Gudha Gaudji, Distt. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus 1. Mahesh Kumar S/o Shri Shish Ram Jat, R/o Kithana, Tehsil Chidawa, Distt. Jhunjhunu. (Driver And Owner Pick- Up No. RJ-18-GB-6577). 2. S.B.I. General Insurance Company Limited, 1St Floor 9, Dwarka Niwas, Kailashpuri, Tonk Road, Jaipur. 203018 Through Branch Manager (Insurer Of Pick-Up No. RJ-18- GB-6577). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment 26/05/2025 1. Instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant aggrieved from dismissal of MAC Case No.89/2023 by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu by invoking power under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC on 07.11.2023. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant while relying upon judgment in case of Akshay Reddy Vs. Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Department) : 2023 Live Law (Kerala) 50 submitted that Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act does not exclude the applicability of the [2025:RJ-JP:23103] (2 of 4) [CMA-2571/2024] Limitation Act, 1963, and it is a benevolent provision, both for accident victims and legal heirs of deceased in accident and it is necessary for the Tribunal/Court to give effect to the law to promote the interest of claimant. He further referred circular dated 02.02.2024 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India and submitted that under Rule 150A of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 read with Section 159 of MV Act and Section 166(4) of MV Act, a detailed accident report is required to be filed but in the instant case, the same is not filed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgment and circular as referred by learned counsel. 4. Admittedly for alleged accident of 22.10.2022, a MAC claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act was filed before the MACT, Jhunjhunu on 18.05.2023. Section 166(3) of MV Act provides that such applications be filed within a period of six months from occurrence of the accident. The law does not provide for applicability of the provision of the Limitation Act, 1963. 5. The provision of Section 166(3) of Motor Vehicle (Amended) Act is reproduced as under: “166(3) No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident.” 6. As per Section 166(3) an application for compensation has to be entertained, if it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident. No recourse is provided for condoning the delay in any circumstances, if a claim petition is filed beyond the period of [2025:RJ-JP:23103] (3 of 4) [CMA-2571/2024] six months. The applicability of law of limitation is also not mentioned under Section 166(3) of M.V. Act. 7. Section 159 and 166(4) of the M.V. Act provides for a mechanism other than filing of claim by claimant(s) and same are reproduced as under: 159. Information to be given regarding accident. - The police officer shall, during the investigation, prepare an accident information report to facilitate the settlement of claim in such form and manner, within three months and containing such particulars and submit the same to the Claims Tribunal and such other agency as may be prescribed. 166(4). The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under [section 159] as an application for compensation under this Act.][(5) Notwithstanding anything in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, the right of a person to claim compensation for injury in an accident shall, upon the death of the person injured, survive to his legal representatives, irrespective of whether the cause of death is relatable to or had any nexus with the injury or not.]” 8. To implement Section 159, a new rule 150-A was introduced in the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, which provides a procedure to be followed in accordance with law. 9. In case of Gohar Mohd. Vs. UPSRTC reported in 2022 ACJ 2771 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if a claimant fails to exercise the option in terms of Section 166(i) within a period of six months, then if a report is submitted under Section 166 (4) of MV Act then later may be treated as claim application. 10. The introduction of period of limitation for preferring MAC Claim Petition is challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bhagirathi Dash Vs. Union of India & Anr. In Writ Petition [2025:RJ-JP:23103] (4 of 4) [CMA-2571/2024] (Civil) No. 166/2024. The case of Akshay Reddy Vs. Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Department) (supra) is already stayed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to get benefit of this order. 11. Recently in case of H. Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah Since Deceased by LRs (Civil Appeal no. 317/2025) reported as 2025 INSC 53 Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered three basic words normally considered by the Courts for allowing condonation of delay and same are “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach” and “substantial justice” and observed that these terms should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation. Further, the Bench observed that rule of limitation are based on principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No Court, should keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time. 12. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu, has rightly dismissed the claim petition as being barred by law of limitation prescribed under Section 166(3) of the MV Act. Therefore, the appeal sans merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. As a result, instant Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby dismissed with pending application, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/127