Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040016342023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : RFA/12/2023 Guruk Pordung Kule S/o Lt. Rango Pordung, Vill Pordung, P.O Khenwa, P.S Seppa, Distr. East Kameng, Presently residing at Pagya Tara Jollang, Itanagar, P.O R.K Mission, P.S Chimpu, Dist. Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh. M. No. 919362566619 VERSUS Mukto Topno Dhan and Anr Tara Bagang, W/o Promod Topno, R/O Village No. 1. Kuwa Danga, P.O Kuwa Danga, P.S Nowboisa, Dist Lakhimpur, Assam. 2:Sanjay Tamang Age: 0 Occupation : S/o Mon Bh. Tamang R/o Rihajuly (Bari) P.O Gamani P.S Charduar Dist. Sunitpur Assam Advocate for the Petitioner : S Tsering, Bakar Dulom,B Padung,Vijay Jamoh Advocate for the Respondent : 1 B R Das, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 21-05-2025 Heard Mr. V. Jamoh, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. R. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. 2. This is an appeal filed under Section 96, read with Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order dated 01.11.2023, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Bomdila, in Misc. Application No. 15/2023 in MAC C/No.13/2023, whereby, the application filed by the applicant/appellant under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC in MACT has been rejected. 3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal is that on 27.09.2021, the appellant’s vehicle, a Fortuner Car, bearing Registration No. AR 05 G 6969, was taken by his driver, Sanjay Tamang without his knowledge and permission and met with an accident in River Pagya Tara, Jullang Itanagar. In the said accident, one Rashni Tapno succumbed to her injuries and Sanjay Tamang, the driver and one Sanu Bishwakarma sustained critical injury. 4. The further case of the appellant is that a Claim Petition was filed by the respondent No. 1 before the Member, MACT, Bomdila seeking compensation on account of the death of the deceased in the said vehicular accident. It was registered as MACT Case No. 13/2023. The appellant was impleaded as respondent. The petition was filed on 16.07.2023, after more than a year of the accident. Therefore, the appellant/applicant filed Misc. Case I. A. No. 15/2023 in MAC Case No. 13/2023, under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, praying for rejection of the claim petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The contention Page No.# 3/5 of the applicant/appellant in the Misc. Application was that the Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been amended, whereby, under Clause-(3) of the Section 166 of the said Act, it provides that, no application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within 6 (six) months of the occurrence of the accident. In the present case, the accident took place on 27.09.2021, and the amendment came into force on 01.04.2022. Thus, there was a delay of about 2 (two) years in filing the claim petition. Therefore, the applicant by filing Misc case prayed for rejection of the claim petition. However, by the impugned order dated 01.11.2023, the learned Member, MACT, Bomdila, rejected the said application on the ground that the provision of Section 166(3) of the MV Act came into operation w.e.f. 01.04.2022 and it does not have retrospective effect, with the further observation that the accident took place on 27.09.2021 and Section 166(3) of the MV Act was not in operation during the relevant period. As such, there is no bar of limitation for filing the MAC claim. 5. Aggrieved, by the said rejection order dated 01.11.2023, the applicant has preferred this appeal primarily on the ground that the provision of Section 166 (3) of the MV Act came into operation w.e.f. 01.04.2022, and the claim petition was filed on 16.07.2023, as such, there was delay of 9 (Nine) months 20 (Twenty) days in filing the claim petition. Moreover, the petitioner did not make any application seeking condonation of delay in filing claim petition. As such, the learned Member, MACT, Bomdila, erred in rejecting the application for dismissal of the claim petition on the ground of limitation. 6. Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has fairly conceded the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that, in fact, there was a delay of about 9 (Nine) months 20 (Twenty) days in filing the claim petition; however, inadvertently, he did not file any application seeking condonation of the delay in Page No.# 4/5 filing claim petition. Therefore, he prays that the matter may be remanded back to the Member, MACT, Bomdila, and allow the respondent/claimant to file a condonation petition for delay in filing the claim petition. 7. Upon hearing the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the accident took place on 27.09.2021, when there was no law limiting the time period for filing a claim petition under Motor Vehicle Act. However, with the introduction of Section 166 (3) of the MV Act, which came into effect from 01.04.2022, it is provided that no application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within 6 (six) months of the occurrence of the accident. In view of the above provision of amended law, the claimant/respondent ought to have filed the claim petition within 6 (six) months from the effectuate date of the amended Section 166 (3) of MV Act, 1988. Since, this provision has a prospective effect, limitation period of 6 (six) months would apply after introduction of the amended law i.e. post 01.04.2022. 8. The records reveal that the claim petition was filed on 16.07.2023. After excluding 6 (six) months from 01.04.2022, still there was a delay of 9 (Nine) months 20 (Twenty) days at the time of filing the claim petition. Under such circumstances, the claimant ought to have filed an application for condonation of delay. Admittedly, no such application was made by the claimant/respondent before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking condonation of delay in filing the claim petition. 9. Under such circumstances, the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed the application of the appellant being Misc. Case No. 15/2023 and reject the claim petition on the ground of limitation. Page No.# 5/5 10. In view of the above, prima facie it appears that there has been a misinterpretation regarding the applicability of the amended provision under Section 166(3) of the MV Act, which came into operation w.e.f. 01.04.2022. 11. In light of the above, the impugned order dated 01.11.2023, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Bomdila, in Misc. Application No. 15/2023 in MAC C/No.13/2023, requires interference and accordingly, it is interfered with. As a result, the impugned order dated 01.11.2023 is set aside and quashed. 12. However, considering that the MV Act is a welfare and beneficial legislation, the respondent/claimant is at liberty to file an appropriate application for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition. Such application so filed, shall be dealt with and disposed of by the claims Tribunal, on its own merits, in accordance with law. 13. With the above observation, this appeal stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant