Supreme Court stays 6-month deadline to file motor accident claims; orders MACTS, HCs not to reject petitions on ground of delay

The Supreme Court recently directed all Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and High Courts across the country not to reject compensation claims of road accident victims on the ground of delay in filing such petitions [ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ayiti Navaneetha & Ors.].

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria also stayed the operation of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which mandates the six-month time limit/ limitation for filing motor accident claim petitions.

“During the pendency of these petitions, the tribunal or the High Courts shall not dismiss the claim petitions on the ground of such petitions as barred by limitation as prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,” the Court ordered.

The Court directed the Central government to file pleadings within two weeks explaining how setting a six-month time limit for filing claims aligns with the legislative intent of providing relief to accident victims.

The matter will be taken up again on November 25.

The Court passed the interim order while hearing a case pertaining to the constitutional validity of the 2019 amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act that imposed a six-month limitation period for accident compensation claims.

The petitioners argued that Section 166(3), as inserted by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, violates the rights of accident victims by placing an arbitrary and rigid time limit that deprives them of compensation.

It defeats the very purpose of a welfare statute enacted to protect road users, the petitioners argued.

It was pointed out that the law earlier had no such limitation period. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, victims could file claims within six months of the accident and tribunals could condone delays for sufficient cause even beyond a year. This flexibility continued until the 1994 amendment, which completely deleted the limitation clause from Section 166, allowing victims to file claims at any time.

However, the 2019 amendment reversed that position by reintroducing a strict time bar through Section 166(3), effective from April 2022. This change, the petition said, “curtailed the rights of road victims by imposing an unreasonable restriction on access to justice.”

The petitioners also submitted that since the very objective of the Motor Vehicles Act is to provide relief and compensation to victims of accidents, the imposition of a limitation period of six months undermines the social welfare intent of the statute.

It also pointed out that tribunals across the country have been dismissing claims solely on the ground of delay since the amendment took effect, leaving victims without remedy.

The Supreme Court’s interim order now protects such claims from being rejected until the larger issue of constitutional validity of Section 166(3) is decided.

The Bench also observed that similar petitions challenging the amendment are pending in different High Courts and that the matter needs to be decided expeditiously.

The petition was filed through advocate Renuka Sahu.

[Read Order]