IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 1192 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.1151/2002 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT:3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., KOLLAM NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFIE, "SHARANYA" HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. VIMALA, MINI VILASOM, KALLUVATHUKKAL, KARAMKODE P.O. 2. BINDU, DO...DO.. 3. MINI, DO..DO. 4. SARITHA, DO..DO.. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------- M.A.C.A.NO.1192 OF 2008 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. Appellant Insurance company questions the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, in O.P.(MV).No.1151/2002. A 46 year old man succumbed to injuries in a motor accident on 8.6.1993 due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured by the appellant Insurance company. His wife and three daughters applied for compensation. Tribunal awarded compensation and directed the Insurance company to deposit the same as insurance coverage of the offending vehicle at the time of accident was admitted. Ext.A1 F.I.R, Ext.A3 post mortem certificate, Ext.A4 wound certificate, etc. shows the death of the husband of the 1st claimant due to the injuries sustained in the motor accident and the driver of the vehicle insured by the appellant Insurance company was charge sheeted as can be seen from Ext.A6. These are not disputed also. Only dispute is that MACA.1192/08 2 claim petition was time barred. 2. The incident occurred in 1993 before the deletion of Sub section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Claim petition was filed only in 2002. The contention of the appellant is that claim is time barred. Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhanalal v. D.P.Vijaya Vargiya ((1996) 4 SCC 652), wherein, it was held that if the case is pending before the Tribunal, High Court or Supreme Court in appeal, all pending applications are saved as Section 166(3) was deleted, and the court shall consider the matter without looking into the question of time bar. In such case, even when the application was filed, the opposite party has got the right to contest the case on the question of time bar. Supreme Court said that in view of the deletion of Sub section (3) of Section 166, the court can consider all pending cases without the question of time bar. Then all the more, the court is bound to consider the matter irrespective of the question of time bar when the application was filed after deletion of Sub section (3) of Section 166. In New India MACA.1192/08 3 Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Padma ((2003) 3 SCC 713), Supreme court held that in view of the deletion of Sub section (3) of Section 166, the time bar will not apply even if the accident occurred prior to the date of amendment. Hence, the impugned award cannot be set aside merely on the basis of time bar. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE prp J.B.KOSHY & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 26th May, 2008