Page 1 OWP no.95/2019 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR … OWP no.95/2019 [WPC no.244/2019] Pronounced on: 11.02.2025 National Insurance Company Limited …….Petitioner(s) Through: Mr Aatir Kawoosa, Advocate Versus Sara and others ……Respondent(s) Through: Mr Muzaffar A. Bhat, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE JUDGEMENT 1. Setting-aside of Order dated 20th October 2018, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantnag, in a claim petition bearing File no.25 titled Mst. Sara v. Ghulam Nabi and others, in the instant writ petition. 2. Heard and considered. 3. On 12th August 2005, one Behram Malik S/o Kabir Malik R/o Brennard Poshandi Shangus, was on his way when he was hit by a vehicle bearing Registration no.JK03/1627 near Poshandi Tehsil Shangus causing grievous injuries to said person and subsequently died of the wounds caused by vehicular accident. FIR no.84/2005 was lodged. Claim petition was filed in 2016. Insurance Company – petitioner herein took a plea that claim petition was barred and hit by limitation. Page 2 OWP no.95/2019 4. The Tribunal vide order dated 28th July 2018, framed the issue “whether claim petition filed by petitioner is time barred and is hit by limitation? OPR3”. In terms of impugned order the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of respondent no.1 and against petitioner-Insurance Company. 5. Impugned order is being challenged on the grounds that alleged accident occurred on 12th August 2005, in which one Behram Malik had allegedly died whereas claim petition has been filed in the year 2016, i.e. after more than 11 years and thereafter, in the year 2017, claimant filed an application for impleading petitioner-Insurance Company as party respondent in claim petition; that in its written statement, petitioner stated that claim petition was not maintainable as being time barred and hit by limitation; that the Tribunal did not appreciate the settled position of law that the claimant is supposed to approach the Tribunal within a reasonable time but aspect of the matter has not been considered by the tribunal; that the Tribunal also did not consider the law laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s Prohit and Company v. Khatoonbee, AIR 2017 SC 1612, wherein it has been held that the claim petition, which is being filed after considerable period of time is to be treated as stale and a dead claim. 6. 6. Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short “Act of 1939”), provided the period of limitation within which claim was to be filed, which for facility of reference is extracted hereunder: “110-A: Application for compensation: (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 110 may be made- (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (aa) by the owner of the property; or (b) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or Page 3 OWP no.95/2019 (c) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. (2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, and shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. Provided that where any claim for compensation under Section 92-A is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant; (3) No application for such compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident : Provided that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of six months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time.” 7. Thus, Section 110A of the Act of 1939 provided six months period of limitation from the date of occurrence of the accident to lay a claim for compensation. However, when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) came into being, it initially provided for six months to file a claim petition from the date of occurrence of accident, but later the period of limitation prescribed under Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988 was completely done away with effect from 14th November 1994, as Section 166(3) came to be deleted, from the Act of 1988. 8. In the present case, the accident took place in the year 2005. At that relevant point of time, there was no limitation in preferring and filing claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Therefore, neither provisions of the Act of 1939 nor provisions of Section 166 (3) are attracted in the case in hand. 9. The instant writ petition is a misconceived petition as it has wasted the precious of time of this Court. The Tribunal in terms of order impugned has eloquently thrown light on the provisions of 166 (3) of the Act of Page 4 OWP no.95/2019 1988 and has rightly said that the Act 54 of 1994 has amended the bar of limitation in preferring claim inasmuch as the accident took place in the year 2005 when amendment had already taken place and bar of limitation was not existing. Thus, impugned order does not call for any interference. 10. In view of above, the instant writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. (Vinod Chatterji Koul) Judge Srinagar 11.02.2025 Ajaz Ahmad, Secretary Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No.