Accident Claims Filed After Six Months Are Barred; Section 166(3) Delay Cannot Be Condoned: Rajasthan High Court

Six appeals by accident claimants were decided together (para 1). In each, a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal allowed the insurer's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and rejected the claim as time-barred (paras 3, 7). In the lead appeal, the accident occurred on 06.11.2022 and the claim was filed on 03.06.2023 (para 7). In another, the charge-sheet for an accident of 04.10.2023 came on 01.04.2024 and the claim followed on 15.04.2024 (para 7). The claimants submitted that limitation does not apply, or that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does, and that beneficial legislation must favour victims (para 4). They relied on Kerala and Madras rulings and a ministry circular (para 5).

Section 166(3) allows a claim only if made within six months of the accident; it provides no recourse for condoning delay and does not mention the law of limitation (paras 9-10). The Act's other route is the police accident information report under Section 159, which Section 166(4) treats as a claim application (paras 11-12). None of these appeals arose from such a report (para 13). In Gohar Mohd. v. UPSRTC, the Supreme Court held that a Section 166(4) report may be treated as a claim even where the claimant misses the six months (para 14). The Court noted that the Madras High Court had returned applications until the Supreme Court decides the challenge to Section 166(3) (para 15), and held that Akshay Raj (Kerala) could not help the claimants because the Supreme Court had stayed a Kerala High Court order of 23.01.2023 (para 16). The law of limitation does not apply to these original proceedings (para 18). A period ending on a holiday is extended, but time spent obtaining copies or awaiting the charge-sheet is not deducted (para 19). Relying on H. Guruswamy, the Court said a "liberal approach" cannot frustrate the law of limitation (para 20).