MACA No.1111 of 2021 1 2025:KER:26949 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S. FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MACA NO. 1111 OF 2021 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 05.02.2020 IN O.P.(M.V.) NO.13 OF 2017 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM APPELLANTS/CLAIMANT-PETITIONER : THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B. ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, THRITHALA, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. ASOK M.CHERIAN RIJI RAJENDRAN ANJANA K RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 : 1 AROGYARAJ AGED 33 YEARS S/O. ARBANSWAMI, RAMANPILLA VEEDU, MENONPARA, CHOTTOOR, PALAKKAD, (DRIVER OF BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-15-7306) 2 MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (OWNER OF BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-15-7306) 3 THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, JRJ COMPLEX, OTTAPPALAM, PIN-679101, REPRESENTED BY BRANCH MANAGER (INSURER OF BUS BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL-15-7306). BY ADVS. P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM) ALEX ANTONY SEBASTIAN P.A. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA No.1111 of 2021 2 2025:KER:26949 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) aggrieved by the dismissal of O.P.(M.V.) No.13 of 2017 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam on the ground that the claim preferred by the board is a stale claim. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: On 28.10.2013 at about 14.25 p.m., the KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KL-15/7306, driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner from Koottanad to Pattambi, hit the transformer on the side of the road near the petrol pump at Njangattiri, and due to the impact of the accident, the electric poles and other equipment of the transformer were destroyed thereby causing a loss of Rs.1,55,331/- to the appellant. 3. Claiming compensation for the damages sustained by them for the replacement of the transformer, the appellant approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam. Since the vehicle was covered with a valid insurance policy, the 3rd respondent insurance company was also arrayed as a party in the claim petition. On behalf of the appellant, Exts.A1 to A10 documents were produced before the tribunal and PW1 to PW3 were examined. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the respondents. The insurance MACA No.1111 of 2021 3 2025:KER:26949 company, however, raised a question of the maintainability of the application, stating that the claim was made after a period of three years and, therefore, the same is not maintainable. The tribunal, relying on the decision of the learned Single Bench in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Jojo [2019 (4) KLT 127], found that the claim is not supported by any evidence and hence the same is stale and therefore dismissed the claim petition. 4. Heard Ms. Anjana K, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Alex Antony Sebastian, the learned counsel appearing for the K.S.R.T.C. Though notice was taken on behalf of the 3rd respondent/insurance company, when the matter was taken up, there is no appearance. However, in the nature of the order that is to be passed in the present appeal, this Court finds that the presence of the insurance company is not required for adjudication. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and that the period of six months i.e., fixed in the said provision, takes effect only from 1.4.2022. In support of her contention, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the learned Single Bench of this Court in Akshay Raj v. Ministry of Law and Justice [2023 (2) KHC 70]. It is further submitted that the decision of this Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Jojo [2019 (4) KLT 127] will not apply to the facts of the present case. The learned counsel, drew a distinction MACA No.1111 of 2021 4 2025:KER:26949 of the decision of this Court and referred to paragraph No.8 of the decision to point out that the said decision has to be construed as the one rendered in the particular facts of the case and not otherwise. 6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the KSRTC pointed out that even if it is assumed that the claim petition is maintainable under law, the appellant has not proved the claim based on any concrete evidence and therefore this Court cannot grant the reliefs sought for by the appellant. 7. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar. 8. Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under: 166. Application for compensation. – (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made- (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) 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. [Provided further that where a person accepts compensation under Section 164 in accordance with the MACA No.1111 of 2021 5 2025:KER:26949 procedure provided under Section 149, his claims petition before the Claims Tribunal shall lapse.] [(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed: [xxxxx] [(3) No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident.] (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.] 9. On a close reading of the aforesaid provision it is clear that the claim in respect of an accident can be set into motion even based on the report of the investigating officer. Such being the position, is it possible to hold that the tribunal is not bound to entertain a “Stale claim”. If so, what could be construed as a stale claim will assume significance. Here two instrumentalities of the State are at loggerheads regarding the sustainability of the claim. The learned counsel MACA No.1111 of 2021 6 2025:KER:26949 appearing for the K.S.E.B. contends that it was due to the rash and negligent driving of the K.S.R.T.C. bus, that the transformer was damaged while the learned counsel for the KSRTC was trying to avoid the claim on the ground of delay. It is in this context this Court is called to resolve this conflict.” 10. It is true that the Law of Limitation cannot be strictly applied to the motor accident claim prior to 1.4.2022 when Section 166 was amended, prescribing a 6-month period for lodging the claim. But this Court in National Insurance Company (supra) held that stale claims cannot be entertained by the tribunal. What would amount to a stale claim is a question of fact to be decided in an individual case. 11. In Purohit and Company(M/s) Vs Khatoonbee and Another [2017 (2) KHC 102], the Supreme Court held that what would be the reasonable time for preferring the claim will depend on individual cases. It is true that in National Insurance Company Limited (Supra), this Court held that the tribunal cannot entertain a normal claim that is stale as of the date of the application. However, reading the Judgment as a whole it is clear that the court was considering a claim petition that was filed after a period of nine years. It is in this context this Court is of the firm view that the aforesaid decision has to be construed as rendered on the facts of the case. 12. Coming to the facts of this case, it is pertinent to mention that the tribunal found the claim to be stale since the same was MACA No.1111 of 2021 7 2025:KER:26949 preferred after the period for filing a suit in relation to a tort. If this is the correct view, then the Supreme Court in Khatoonbee (Supra) could have said that the claim ought to be preferred within the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963. One must not forget that when the Act itself does not make the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 applicable, the rules governing the limitation for initiation of proceedings cannot be made strictly applicable. Of course, the court cannot lose sight of the fact that the claimants cannot wait indefinitely to prefer the claim. However, when on analysis of the fact presented before the court, if it appears that the claim is not unduly delayed, then nothing prevents the tribunal or court from entertaining the same. Suffice it to say that the tribunal cannot reject the claim stating that the same has been preferred beyond the period of limitation provided under the Act when the Act itself is not made applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal. Viewed in the above perspective, this Court finds that the learned counsel for the appellant is justified in submitting that the tribunal erred egregiously in dismissing the claim petition. 13. In fact, it is evident that the accident took place on 28.10.2013. The nature of compensation that is sought for before the tribunal is only with regard to the replacement costs incurred by the K.S.E.B and also considering the fact that the appellant as well as the owner of the offending vehicle are instrumentalities of the State, this MACA No.1111 of 2021 8 2025:KER:26949 Court is of the considered view that the tribunal ought not to have rejected the claim on the basis of the same being barred by limitation. However, since the tribunal has found that the claim on merits is not substantiated, this Court will not be justified in entering into the merits of the case. In such circumstances, it is only just and proper that the appellant be given an opportunity to adduce fresh evidence in order to sustain the claim. 14. As an upshot of the above discussions, this Court finds that the appellant is entitled to succeed. The appeal is allowed. The award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam in O.P.(M.V.) No.13 of 2017 is set aside. The application will stand restored to the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam. The parties shall appear before the tribunal on 9.4.2025 and the tribunal will proceed to consider the case on merits and take a decision in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Sd/- EASWARAN S. JUDGE NS