1969 (5) TMI 61 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Rules Motor Accidents Tribunal Lacks Jurisdiction for Pre-Establishment Claims

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. Versus Shanti Misra and Ors.

The court held that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain claims for accidents that occurred before its constitution. It ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for accidents occurring prior to its constitution.2. Retrospective application of procedural laws.3. Period of limitation for filing claims under the Motor Vehicles Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for accidents occurring prior to its constitution:The primary issue in this case was whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) could entertain claims for accidents that occurred before its constitution. The Tribunal was constituted by a notification published on 18th March 1967, and the accident in question occurred on 11th September 1966. The petitioners argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over claims arising from accidents that predated its establishment. The court agreed, emphasizing that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal does not automatically extend to accidents that occurred before its constitution. The court stated, 'the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain claims arising out of accidents which occur subsequent to its constitution and can have no jurisdiction to entertain claims arising out of accidents occurring prior to its constitution.'2. Retrospective application of procedural laws:The court extensively discussed the retrospective application of procedural laws. It cited the Supreme Court's observation in Anant Gopal Sheorey v. State of Bombay, which stated, 'a change in the law of procedure operates retrospectively and unlike the law relating to vested right is not only prospective.' However, the court noted that this general principle has limitations, especially when a new procedural law, such as a statute of limitation, could destroy a vested right of action. The court referred to multiple precedents, including District School Board of Belgaum v. Mohammad Mulla and Govt. of Rajasthan v. Sangram Singh, to support its conclusion that procedural laws should not be applied retrospectively if they would adversely affect vested rights.3. Period of limitation for filing claims under the Motor Vehicles Act:The court examined the period of limitation prescribed by the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 110-A(3) of the Act stipulates that claims must be filed within sixty days of the accident. The court highlighted the discrepancy between this period and the two-year limitation period under the Limitation Act, 1963. It noted that applying the sixty-day limitation retrospectively would unfairly bar claims that could otherwise be filed within two years. The court stated, 'there is nothing in any of these provisions to indicate a clear intention of the Legislature that there would operate retrospectively and if they are given retrospective effect, they are likely to deprive persons of vested right of action.'The court also addressed the proviso to Section 110-A(3), which allows the Tribunal to entertain claims filed after sixty days if there is sufficient cause for the delay. However, it concluded that this proviso does not justify giving retrospective effect to the limitation period, as the possibility of condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act already exists.Conclusion:The court concluded that the Tribunal constituted under Section 110(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act has no jurisdiction to entertain claims for accidents that occurred before its constitution. The petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The court directed that the Tribunal should not proceed with the claim of the opposite parties. The court made no order as to costs.