Read Time: 04 minutes
As per the 2019 amendment a new proviso has been introduced under section 166 as Section-166(3) to the effect that: “No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident”
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Public Interest Litigation filed under Article 32 of challenging the legality and validity of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 with regard to insertion of Sub-section (3) to Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.
A division bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Prasanna B Varale has issued notice returnable within 8 weeks.
Filed through AOR Renuka Sahu, the plea states that post the Amendment a restriction has been imposed to the extent that the Claims Tribunal may entertain an application filed only within six months of the occurrence of the accident.
Prior to the amendment, since 1994 no time limit existed for filing the claims application by injured victims or their legal heirs.
"The aforementioned new clause introduced by the said amendment, which became effective from 01.04.2022 according to the Gazette Notification, has had a significant impact on road victims, altering the legal landscape and potentially influencing their rights and entitlements in considerable ways", the PIL states.
Court has been told that while amending the said provision, the legislature has not even considered any opinion or referred any law commission report or any parliamentary debate.
"The legislative intent is to remove the hardship faced by the road victims. But when the legislatures after more than decades again introduce a harsh legislation relating to filing of claim cases by the road victims by curtailing their valuable and substantive right as was prevailing before, such harsh legislation be declared to be ultra-virus and opposed to the Constitutional guarantee of the road victims..", the petitioner has added.
It is further the PIL petitioner's case that the amendment is also unconstitutional qua Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and runs contrary to Article 44(a), (b) and 113 of the Limitation Act. The amendment has also not considered the effect of Section 29 of the Limitation Act, it has been argued.
The legislation will deprive thousands of road victims who are still hospitalized and their full recovery may take years to make them fit to present their claim application, the PIL adds.
Case Title: BHAGIRATHI DASH vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Please Login or Register
