IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1512 of 2004 BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURA Versus RAJEEV KUMAR SINGH & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Ram Chandra Lal Das, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Abdul Mannan Khan, Advocate Md. Najmul Hodo, Advocate Md. Rahmatullah, Advocate 24 15.7.2008 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel for the opposite party. Though this case was initially taken up on 8.7.2008 and an order dismissing the civil revision application was passed but before the order could be signed, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Insurance Company had appeared and had stated that due to oversight he could not mark the list and as such could not assist this Court. Accordingly, the order was not signed. Counsel for the petitioner, Insurance Company however has now submitted that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained inasmuch as the Court below has not gone into the crucial question of limitation. He accordingly submits that when the accident lead to death had taken place on 5.5.1994 and the claim came to be filed in the year 1999, the same was much beyond the period of limitation. He further submits that the Court below has also not correctly considered the question of liability of the Insurance Company and has passed the impugned order without 2 examining its case vis-à-vis the case of the owner and driver of the vehicle. On the other hand, Counsel of the opposite party nos. 2, 3 & 4 has submitted that after amendment in the Motor Vehicle Act, the question of limitation has now taken a back seat inasmuch as after the amendment no period of limitation has been prescribed. He in this context refers to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sohan Lal Passi Vs. P. reported in 1997 (1) BLJR 247 SC and Dasrath Prasad Vs. Catholic Charities reported in 1996 (1) BLJR 444 Patna. The learned Counsel further submits that as a matter of fact when nothing was stated by the Insurance Company to disown its liability and shift it on the owner and/or driver of the vehicle in the court below, the impugned order holding the Insurance Company liable to pay compensation cannot be assailed specially when the Vehicle in question was comprehensively insured. This Court after taking into consideration the aforementioned submissions is of the view that the plea of limitation as sought to be pressed by the petitioner, Insurance Company must be rejected on a simple proposition that once the amended provision of the Motor Vehicle Act has done away with the provisions of limitation, this technical plea cannot usurp the right of the claimants to receive compensation for the death of the deceased 3 persons who admittedly died in a road accident. That apart, the Apex Court has in the case of Sohan Lal Passi (supra) already held that nonapplicability of limitation would be given a retrospective operation even in respect of death taking place prior to amendment. Thus the plea of limitation must fail. As with regard to the second question pertaining to shifting of liability on the owner and the driver of the vehicle, this Court is of the considered opinion that nothing in this regared was brought to the notice of the Court below and in fact the Court below has rightly proceeded on the basis of the terms and conditions of the insurance as indicated in the policy making the Insurance Company liable to pay in case of any accident taking place during the subsistence of such insurance policy. This Court has also carefully looked into the pleadings in the present civil revision application and there is nothing on record to show that any specific plea for shifting such liability was ever there by the petitioner before the Court below. Consequently, this Court would find no error even in the second part of the order fixing liability of payment on the Insurance Company, the petitioner. This Court has also considered that the quantum of compensation which is Rs. 1,69,500/- only payable with 9% interest thereon from the date of filing of the petition such 4 amount can not also said to be either exorbitant or against the evidence on record. The Court below has considered even this aspect of the matter and taking into consideration that the deceased was aged about 26 years only and his income was Rs. 2,000/- per month approximately, this Court would not hold any error even in the ultimate determination of the amount of compensation. Consequently, there is no merit in this civil revision application and the same is hereby dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)