Retrospective jurisdiction and limitation under the Motor Vehicles Act barred tribunal claims for pre-constitution accidents.

The Claims Tribunal's jurisdiction was held to depend on both the forum created by the Motor Vehicles Act and the limitation regime attached to the remedy. A procedural change may operate retrospectively, but a new limitation provision cannot be applied to extinguish an existing cause of action or vested right of action without clear legislative intent. Sections 110 to 110-F contained no express indication that claims arising from pre-constitution accidents were to be governed retrospectively. The proviso allowing condonation of delay did not change that position, because delay could otherwise be addressed under the Limitation Act. The Tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction over claims arising from accidents that occurred before its constitution.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain a claim arising out of an accident that occurred before the Tribunal was constituted.

Analysis: The jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal was held to depend not merely on the procedural nature of the forum but also on the limitation regime attached to the remedy. A procedural change may ordinarily operate retrospectively, but a new limitation provision cannot be applied retrospectively where it would extinguish an existing cause of action or destroy a vested right of action without clear legislative intention. Sections 110 to 110-F of the Motor Vehicles Act were held to contain no express indication that claims arising from pre-constitution accidents were meant to be governed retrospectively. The proviso permitting condonation of delay did not alter this conclusion, since delay could in any event be considered under the Limitation Act.

Conclusion: The Claims Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain claims arising from accidents that occurred prior to its constitution, and the impugned order was liable to be quashed.

---