H.S. Bedi, J.
1. This claim petition has been filed by the widow and two children of the deceased, Narinder Rai Puri, who was killed in a motor accident involving a staff car belonging to the Union of India being driven by Sansar Singh, respondent No. 2, on 20.7.1983. As per claim petition, the deceased who was sitting on the pillion seat of the scooter No. HYA 5879 (Priya) being driven by Subhash Chander, P.W. 15, which suffered a collision with the staff car aforesaid, as a result of which Narinder Rai Puri fell on the road and sustained serious injuries. He was an ex-serviceman, but ultimately died of the injuries suffered in the accident. It appeared that while Narinder Rai Puri was in the hospital, a compromise was effected between the parties and his son Rakesh Puri also signed a 'no claim certificate' absolving respondents from their liability. The petitioners, however, filed the present claim application on 11.10.1984 claiming a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000 by way of compensation on account of the death of Narinder Rai Puri pleading that he was 62 years of age at the time of his death and that he was earning Rs. 2,000 per month. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents and though the factum of the accident was admitted, the circumstances in which it had, happened were denied, it was primarily pleaded that the accident had happened as the scooter driver was driving the scooter on the wrong side of the road which had led to the collision. It was further pleaded that the respondent had, in any case, been absolved of any liability as a certificate of no claim had been signed by them. In replication, the claimants denied the averments made in the written statement and also pleaded that 'no claim certificate' had been obtained by the Army authorities under duress and was not binding on them.
2. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
(1) Whether the claim petition is within time? OPP
(2) Whether the petitioners are estopped by their own act and conduct from filing or maintaining the present claim petition? OPR
(3) Whether the accidental death of Narinder Rai Puri took place due to rash and negligent driving of Station Wagon of Station Head Quarters bearing No. 75 B-1 1119 N by Sansar Singh respondent No. 2? OPP
(4) If issue No. 3 is proved, to what amount of compensation are the petitioners entitled, from whom and in what respect?
(5) Relief.
3. The Tribunal in its award (under issue No. 1) held that as the claim petition has been filed beyond the period of limitation, the same was not maintainable. It was further observed (under issue No. 2) that the claimants were not estopped from filing the claim petition as Raj Rani and Sunita Puri had not, in any case signed the 'no claim certificate' and only Rakesh Puri would perhaps be restrained from doing so. The Tribunal then went to the question of negligence and observed that there appeared to be a serious dispute as to the manner in which the accident had taken place inasmuch as Subhash Chander, P. W. 15, the scooter driver, had stated that the collision had taken place between the car and scooter, whereas, in the claim petition, it had been pleaded that the car in question had come from the rear side and struck against the scooter causing injuries to Narinder Rai Puri. The Tribunal accordingly held that it had not been proved that the accident had happened on account of the rash and negligent driving of Sansar Singh, the car driver and in view of the above findings, the Tribunal declined to go into the question of quantum of compensation under issue No. 4 and announced its award dated 23.8.1985 dismissing the claim petition. Aggrieved by the award, the present appeal has been filed.
4. It has been argued by Mr. Amarjit Markan, the learned Counsel for the appellants that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya : AIR1996SC2155 , the finding with regard to the claim petition being time-barred was not sustainable. He has pointed out that the accident had happened on 20.7.1983 and as per the law as it then stood the claim petition had to be rejected as being time-barred, but in view of the aforesaid judgment, the defence of limitation was no longer available to the respondent Union of India as Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had been deleted by Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which came into force on 14.11.1994. This argument has merit. It is thus evident that no limitation now remains for filing a claim petition with respect to a motor accident.
5. The question arises as to what should be done in cases where the accident and the award of the Tribunal had happened long before the amendment had been enforced. Dealing with such a situation the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid report (in para 8) observed as under:
The matter will be different if any claimant having filed a petition for claim beyond time which has been rejected by Claims Tribunal or the High Court, the claimant does not challenge the same and allows the said judicial order to become final. The aforesaid Amendment Act shall be of no help to such claimant. The reason being that a judicial order saying that such petition of claim was barred by limitation has attained finality. But that principle will not govern cases where the dispute as to whether petition for claim having been filed beyond the period of twelve months from he date of the accident is pending consideration either before the Tribunal, High Court or this Court. In such cases, the benefit of amendment of Sub-section (3) of Section 166 should be extended.
Admittedly the present appeal was pending in this Court at the time when the amendment was enforced, the same having been filed in the year 1985. In this view of the matter, the finding on issueNo. 1 is reverse and it is held that the claim petition was within time.
6. The finding on issue No. 3 has now to be considered. It is true that Subhash Chander, P.W. 15, the scooter driver gave a statement that the accident was on account of a head-on collision whereas in the claim petition the positive stand was that the scooter had been hit from the rear by the car. The Tribunal has accordingly inferred that as the evidence was at variance with the pleadings in the claim petition, no credence could be given to the story put by the claimants. To my mind, there is no substance in this finding as Sansar Singh, who had appeared as R.W.1 and was the driver of the car, also admitted that the accident was in the nature of a head-on collision between the car and scooter. Admittedly, Subhash Chander, P.W. 15, was the person who was driving the scooter. He too clearly stated that the car which was being driven at a fast speed by its driver had met with a head-on collision with the scooter. In this view of the matter, the finding on issue No. 3 is also reversed.
7. As already noted above, the Tribunal had declined to examine the issue with regard to the quantum of compensation on account of the findings on the earlier issues. Mr. Markan has taken me through the evidence of several witnesses, who have stated that the deceased after his retirement had been working as a part-time accountant with several concerns. As no finding on this issue has been recorded by the Tribunal, I am of the opinion that the matter should be remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar for determination of the quantum of compensation. This appeal is accordingly allowed, the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar dated 23.8.1985 is set aside but the matter is remanded to Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar, who shall after hearing the parties give a decision on issues No. 4 within a period of four months from the date of the first appearance of both the parties before it. As the respondent/Union of India remains unrepresented today, a copy of this judgment be sent to it free of cost under registered cover. Dasti.