Omission of limitation in motor accident claims removes the time bar, and general limitation law cannot revive it.

Omission of the limitation provision in the motor accident compensation framework is treated as removing the time bar for claim petitions filed after that omission. The text states that, once Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act was omitted, claims could not be rejected as time-barred merely because the accident occurred under an earlier limitation regime. It also explains that Section 6A of the General Clauses Act could not preserve the former limit against a contrary legislative intent, and Article 137 of the Limitation Act could not be used to reintroduce a limitation period into a beneficial statute for accident victims and their families.

---

---

Issues: Whether a motor accident claim petition filed after omission of the limitation provision in Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act could be rejected as time-barred because the accident had occurred when the earlier limitation regime was in force, and whether Article 137 of the Limitation Act could be invoked to supply a limitation period.

Analysis: The limitation provision under Section 110-A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was replaced by Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and thereafter Section 166(3) itself was omitted with effect from 14.11.1994. The omission was intended to remove the hardship caused by dismissal of genuine accident claims on limitation grounds. Once the claim petition was filed after the omission, the Tribunal had to entertain it without treating the prior lapse of time as a bar. The saving principle in Section 6A of the General Clauses Act did not assist the appellant because the legislative change showed a contrary intention. Article 137 of the Limitation Act could not be pressed into service to reintroduce a limitation period in a beneficial and self-contained statute meant to provide relief to accident victims and their families.

Conclusion: The limitation objection failed and the claim petition was not barred by time; the appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: When the legislature omits the limitation provision in a beneficial motor accident compensation statute, pending or later claims cannot be rejected on the basis of the earlier limitation period, and general limitation provisions cannot be invoked to defeat that legislative intent.

---