The Supreme Court has stayed the operation of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which imposed a six-month limit for filing accident claims. Tribunals and High Courts have been directed not to reject petitions solely due to delay.
The Supreme Court of India has directed all Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) and High Courts across the country not to reject compensation claims of road accident victims only because they were filed late.
This ruling came in the case where the Court took up the issue of whether the new time limit under the Motor Vehicles Act is fair to victims.
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria issued this important direction while hearing a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The section, which was introduced by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, puts a six-month time limit for victims to file a compensation claim after an accident. The Court has now stayed the operation of this provision.
The Bench made it clear that,
“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 Supreme Court also directed the Central government to explain the reasoning behind this time restriction.
It asked the government to file its response within two weeks, clarifying how the six-month limit supports the legislative intent of helping accident victims and their families. The matter has been listed for the next hearing on November 25.
The case revolves around whether this strict time limit goes against the spirit of a welfare law that was meant to protect and compensate road accident victims.
The petitioners argued that the introduction of Section 166(3) is unfair and unconstitutional because it creates an unnecessary barrier for victims seeking justice.
They said that the rule
“violates the rights of accident victims by placing an arbitrary and rigid time limit that deprives them of compensation.”
According to them, the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act is to offer relief and financial support to people affected by road accidents, not to restrict them through procedural deadlines.
They said the amendment
“defeats the very purpose of a welfare statute enacted to protect road users.”
To understand the issue, the Court also reviewed the legal history. Under the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, there was a six-month limit for filing claims, but tribunals were allowed to accept claims even after that period if there was a valid reason for the delay.
This flexible approach continued even after the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was introduced. Later, in 1994, the government removed the limitation clause entirely from Section 166. This meant that victims could file claims at any time without being restricted by deadlines.
However, in 2019, the government reversed this position by reintroducing a strict six-month time bar under Section 166(3), which became effective from April 2022.
The petitioners said this change
“curtailed the rights of road victims by imposing an unreasonable restriction on access to justice.”
They argued that the law should focus on compensating victims rather than penalizing them for delay, especially since accident victims and their families are often dealing with trauma, financial loss, or long recovery periods.
The petition also highlighted that since this amendment came into effect, many tribunals across India have been dismissing claims only because they were filed late. This has left several deserving victims without any legal remedy or compensation.
The Supreme Court’s interim order now ensures that no such claim will be rejected due to delay until the constitutional validity of Section 166(3) is finally decided.
The Bench also took note that several similar petitions challenging this amendment are pending before different High Courts and emphasized the need to resolve the matter soon to ensure uniformity and fairness across the country.
The petition was filed through advocate Renuka Sahu.
This interim protection by the Supreme Court offers major relief to thousands of road accident victims and their families, ensuring that justice and compensation are not denied merely because of procedural deadlines.
The final verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 166(3) will decide whether the six-month time limit stays or is permanently struck down.
Case Title:
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ayiti Navaneetha & Ors.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Motor Accident
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
