Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
SUMAN & ANR. ..... Appellants
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sajjan Kr. Singh and Mr. Santosh Kr. Sahu, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Anshum Jain and Mr. Amol Sinha , Advocate.
1. Appellants impugn judgment dated 01.04.2019 whereby the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal has dismissed the application for compensation filed by the appellant on thegroundof delay.
2. Subject accident is alleged to have taken place on 02.02.1998. The claim petition was filed on 19.08.2014after a gap of 16 years and 6 months.Tribunal hasrejected the claim on the ground of limitation.
3. The only ground taken by learned counselfor the appellants is that appellants are illiterate and living in a village and were not aware of their rights. No other reason hasbeen stated by learned counsel for 2021:DHC:979 MAC.APP.248/2020 2 the appellants or in theappeal which prevented the appellants from approachingthe Tribunal for making a claim for compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Purohit & Company Vs. Khatoonbee & Ors. 2017(4) SCC 783 to contendthat as the limitation prescribed under the Motor VehicleAct was specifically deletedby omission of Section 166(3) of the MotorVehicles Act,1988 (hereinaftercalled the Act), the claim should have been entertained even aftera lapse of 16 years and 6 months.
5. 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 amendment and deletion of Section 166 (3) of the Act.
6. Supreme Court in Purohit &Company Vs. Khatoonbee & Ors. (Supra) has held that deletion of Section 166(3) would not amount to all and sundry to approach theMotor Accident Claims Tribunal to raise the claim of compensation at any juncture afterthe accident had taken place. An individual concerned must approach the Tribunal within a reasonable time. The Supreme Court has held that the question of reasonabletime would depend on facts and circumstances of each case.
7. In the present case as noticed above,thereis a delay of 16 years MAC.APP.248/2020 3 and 6 months in approaching the Tribunal and no explanation has been given by the appellanteither before theTribunal or before this Court as to what prevented the appellants from approaching the Tribunal within a reasonable time.
8. 16 years and 6 months’ time cannot by stretch of imagination be treatedas a reasonable time in not approaching the Tribunal for a claim for compensation.
9. Mere submission that appellants resided in a village and was not aware of her rights, to my mind is not a valid ground for not approachingthe Tribunal within a reasonabletime.
10. I find no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal in rejecting the claim petition on the ground of limitation. I find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J MARCH 17, 2021 ‘rs’