Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ramesh Bhimrao Patil, was injured in a motor accident that occurred on 24 November 1989. He filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune, seeking compensation. Along with that application, he also filed an application under Section 140 of the Act for interim compensation on a no-fault basis, along with a prayer for condonation of delay. The application under Section 140 was filed on 20 October 1991, nearly two years after the accident. The Tribunal treated the application as Exhibit 12 and rejected it on the ground that there was no provision for condoning the delay and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for condonation of delay filed after one year of the accident. Aggrieved by this order dated 28 April 1992, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The sole legal issue was whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to condone delay in filing an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner's counsel argued that Section 140 is a summary proceeding where no negligence needs to be proved and the compensation amount is fixed by the legislature. He contended that no limitation is prescribed for such an application, and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have entertained it. The court agreed with the petitioner's submissions and held that Section 140 does not prescribe any period of limitation. Consequently, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain an application for condonation of delay. The court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed the Tribunal to consider the application under Section 140 on its own merits, without being influenced by the delay. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Act - Section 140 - Limitation - No limitation prescribed for application under Section 140 - The court held that Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provides for interim compensation on a no-fault basis, does not prescribe any period of limitation. Therefore, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an application for condonation of delay even if filed beyond one year from the accident. The limitation under Section 166 applies only to claims on fault basis, not to Section 140 applications. (Paras 1-3) B) Motor Vehicles Act - Section 140 - Condonation of Delay - Tribunal's jurisdiction - The court held that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay on the ground that there was no provision for condonation. Since no limitation is prescribed, the application under Section 140 can be filed at any time, and the Tribunal must consider it on merits. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to condone delay in filing an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and whether any limitation period applies to such applications.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pune, dated 28.4.1992 is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to consider the application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on its own merits, without being influenced by the delay.
Law Points
- No limitation period for Section 140 claim
- Section 140 is a summary proceeding
- Tribunal has jurisdiction to condone delay
- Section 166 limitation not applicable to Section 140
