AIR 1991 SUPREME COURT 2156 ::1991 AIR SCW 2503 ::1991 (2) ACC 4449 ::1992 CriAppR(SC) 68 ::(1991) 2 ACC 449 ::(1992) 1 MahLR 46 ::1992 (1) UJ (SC) 129 ::1992 UJ(SC) 1 129 ::(1992) 1 CivLJ 62 ::1991 (4) SCC 333 ::1991 (2) All CJ 1353 ::(1991) 2 ACJ 1060 ::1991 (2) TAC 553 ::1992 (1) BLJ 167 ::1992 (2) BLJR 816 ::1991 (3) CurCC 249 ::(1992) 75 ComCas 611 ::1992 (1) GujLH 128 ::1992 (1) Ker LT 338 ::1992 (1) Pun LR 156 ::1992 (1) PatLJR 3 ::(1991) 3 SCR 912 (SC) ::1991 (3) SCR 912 ::1992 (1) SCJ 1 ::(1991) 3 JT 660 (SC) ::1991 (3) JT 660

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Bombay)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): Lalit Mohan Sharma, J. S. Verma , JJ

Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) , S.217(1), S.166(3)— Claim petition - Limitation - Accident taking place when old Act of 1939 was in force - Claim petition filed after repeal of old Act and new Act came into force - Question of condonation of delay must be governed by new law - Delay of more than six months from date of accident could not be condoned. General Clauses Act (10 of 1897) , S.6— Interpretation of Statutes - Repeal of Act.Motor accident - Claim petition - Limitation under new Act. Where the accident took place when the old Motor Vehicles Act was in force, however, the claim petition was filed after the repeal of the old Act and the new Act came into force, the case would be covered by the new Act and delay for a longer period than six months could not be condoned. Case law discussed.(Para 11) In such a case, Cl.(e) of S.6 of General Clauses Act is not attracted because, by the enactment of the new law the remedy of the claimant has not been affected at all. His right to claim compensation by filing the claim within the same period of limitation has been preserved. And there was no application for condonation of delay in a proceeding pending at the time of repeal so as to allow him to claim any privilege available under the old Act.(Para 5) Though the claim....