The Supreme Court has passed an interim order directing Motor Accident Claims Tribunals as well as High Courts not to dismiss any motor accident compensation claims as time-barred for the time being.

This direction was issued while hearing a writ petition challenging the validity of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which—after the 2019 amendment—reintroduced a six-month limitation period for filing claim petitions from the date of the accident.

A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria noted that multiple petitions across the country have raised the same issue. Since any ruling in the present matter would affect all such cases, the Court stated that the issue needs to be taken up expeditiously. The parties have been instructed to complete pleadings within two weeks, failing which they will lose the right to file further pleadings. The matter has been listed for hearing on November 25.

The Court recorded:

Since several petitions are pending on the same issue across various courts and any clarification by this Court will have a bearing on all such matters, the hearing needs to be expedited.

During the pendency of these proceedings, no Tribunal or High Court shall dismiss a claim petition as barred by limitation under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The petition, filed by a practising advocate, challenges the constitutionality of the provision on the ground that limiting the time to file compensation claims violates Articles 14, 19, and 21, and defeats the purpose of a welfare legislation meant to protect road accident victims.

Historically, the MV Act of 1988 originally contained a six-month limitation period, but this restriction was removed in 1994, allowing claims to be filed without any time bar. However, by way of Act 32 of 2019, which came into effect on April 1, 2022, the limitation period was reintroduced, stating:

“(3) No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident.”

The petitioner argues that this amendment was introduced without any supporting legislative rationale, consultation with stakeholders, law commission reference, or parliamentary debate. It has therefore been contended that the amendment is arbitrary, unreasoned, and detrimental to accident victims who may not be able to file claims promptly due to medical, financial, or procedural constraints.

Case Title: Bhagirathi Dash v. Union of India & Anr. | W.P.(C) No. 166/2024
Appearance: Sr. Adv. Jay Savla, assisted by Renuka Sahu, AOR.