AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J
Appellants impugn judgment dated 01.04.2019 whereby the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has dismissed the application for compensation filed by the appellant on the ground of delay.
Subject accident is alleged to have taken place on 02. 02.1998. The claim petition was filed on 19.08.2014 after a gap of 16 years an d 6 months. Tribunal has rejected the claim on the ground of limitation.
The only ground taken by learned counsel for the appellants is that appellants are illiterate and living in a village and were not aware of their rights. No other reason has been stated by learned counsel for the appellants or in the appeal which prevented t he appellants from approaching the Tribunal for making a claim for compensation.
Learned counsel for the appellants relies on the decision of t h e Supreme Court in Purohit & Company Vs. Khatoonbee & Ors. 2017(4) SCC 783 to contend that as the limitation prescribed u nder the Motor Vehicle Act was specifically deleted by omission of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called t h e Act ), the claim should have been entertained even after a lapse of 16 years and 6 months.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in the impugned award has also relied upon the judgment in Purohit & Company Vs. Khatoonbee & Ors. (Supra) to hold that the claim could not be permitted to be filed merely because of am endment an d deletion of Section 166 (3) of the Act.
Supreme Court in Purohit & Company Vs. Khatoonbee & Ors. (Supra) has held that deletion of Section 166(3) would not am ount t o all and sundry to approach the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal t o raise the claim of compensation at any juncture after the accident h ad taken place. An individual concerned must approach the Tribunal within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court has held that the question of reasonable time would depend on facts and circumstances of each case.
In the present case as noticed above, there is a delay of 16 years and 6 months in approaching the Tribunal and n o explanation h as been given by the appellant either before the Tribunal or before t h is Court as to what prevented the appellants from approaching the Tribunal within a reasonable time.
16 years and 6 months' time cannot by stretch of im agination be treated as a reasonable time in not approaching the Tribunal for a claim for compensation.
Mere submission that appellants resided in a village an d was not aware of her rights, to my mind is not a valid ground for not approaching the Tribunal within a reasonable time.
I find no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal in rejecting the claim petition on the ground of limitation. I fin d n o m erit in t he appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.