Chandan Patowary vs XXX

In this civil revision petition, the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 03.10.2019, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Barpeta in MAC

Case No. 156/2019, is challenged by the petitioner, Sri Chandan Patowary S/o Late Pabitra Patowary of Chenga, Subha under the district of Barpeta.

It is to be mentioned herein that vide the impugned order, the learned Member, MACT, Barpeta has dismissed the claim petition filed by the

petitioner under Section 166 and 140 of the MV Act, 1988 being not maintainable in law.

The factual background leading to filing the present petition is briefly stated as under â€

The petitioner as claimant has filed a petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the MV Act before the Member, MACT, Barpeta

claiming compensation on account of accidental injuries suffered by him on 17.12.2018, but the learned Member, MACT, Barpeta, vide the impugned

order dated 03.10.2019, dismissed the petition on the ground that amended MV Act came into force w.e.f. 01.09.2019, which contained a provision

that no application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within 6(Six) months from the date of accident, and the present application

being filed beyond six months is not maintainable. Then, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the

present civil revision petition.

Heard Mr. H. Buragoahin, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents.

Mr. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accident of this case took place on 17.12.2018 and the claimed petition has been

filed on 28.08.2019. It is further submitted that though the Motor Vehicle Act has been amended and in view of the amendment of the Section 166 of

the MV Act, the claimed petition has to be preferred within a period of 6(Six) months from the date of occurrence, yet the same has not been notified

by the Central Government. Mr. Buragohain further submits that though the Central Government has notified in the Official Gazette, published on

30.08.2019, that Section 1 of the MV Act 2019 appoints the 1st day of September, 2019 as the date on which Section 1 of the said Act shall come into

force, yet the Central Government has not notified the date from which the other Section relating to the date from which the said provision shall come

into force. It is further submitted that Section 53 of the Amendment Act inserted a new Sub-Section i.e. Sub-Section 2 to Section 166 of the MV Act,

yet it has not been notified by the Government in the Official Gazette from which the Section 53 of the MV (Amendment) Act will come into force

and as such the case of the petitioner is governed by the earlier Act i.e. Act of 1988.

Mr. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred one order of the Coordinated Bench of this Court in CRP/172/2019 dated

03.03.2021, wherein this Court dealing with a similar questions of law has allowed the petition and the present case is squarely covered by the said

order of this Court and therefore Mr. Buragohain contends to allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order of the learned Member, MACT,

Barpeta.

Having heared the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have carefully gone through the records and the documents placed on

record and also the order dated 03.03.2021 passed in CRP/172/2019 passed by the Coordinated Bench of this Court, it is mentioned herein that in the

aforesaid order, this Court held as follows:

“6. The amending Act of 2019 was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary Pt.-II, Section 1, No. 51 dated 9th August, 2019.

Thereafter, in terms of SubSection (2) of Section 1 of the amending Act of 2019, the provision of Section 1 of the amending Act of 2019 had

come into force on 01.09.2019 by virtue of Notification no. S.O.3147(E) dated 30th August, 2019. The provision of Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, which was amended vide the amending Act of 2019 is contained in Section 53 thereof. The learned counsel for the

respondent no.2 as well as the learned A.S.G.I., have not been able to show that that the provision of Section 53 of the amending Act of

2019 has been notified. In this regard, the Court is relying on the footnote appended to Section 1 appearing in the bare act of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 published by the Universal/ Lexis Nexis (2020 Edition) wherefrom it appears that Sections 50 to 57 including Section 53

of the amending Act of 2019 was not notified till the date of publication of the said bare act.â€​

It appears from the Gazette Notification dated 9th August, 2019 that the new Amendment of the MV (Amendment) Act shall come into force on a

date, as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of

this Act and any reference in any such provision to the commencement of this Act shall be construed as a reference to the coming into force of that

provision. Further, from the Gazette Notification dated 30th August, 2019 reveals that the Central Government has appoints the 1st day of September,

2019 as the date on which Section 1 of the said Act shall come into force but no Gazette Notification has been published by the Central Government

from which that Section 53 of the amendment Act which relates to amendment of the Section 166 of the MV Act has come into force.

As held by this Court in CRP/172/2019, vide order dated 03.03.2021 and in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner

and further in view of the fact that the Central Government has yet to notify from which date Section 53 of the Amendment Act 2019, shall come into

force, the impugned order dated 03.10.2019 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Barpeta passed in MAC Case No. 156/2019 cannot sustain and

accordingly, the same stands set aside.

The claimed petition filed by the petitioner being MAC Case No. 156/2019, shall be restored to the file of the learned Tribunal with immediate

effect, and the learned Tribunal, thereafter, shall proceed to hear the claimed petition in accordance with law.

In terms of the above, the civil revision petition stands disposed of.