Page No.# 1/93 vs Girikanta Mahanta And 5 Ors on 18 February, 2026

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/93 vs Girikanta Mahanta And 5 Ors on 18 February, 2026

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK GANAPATI
MANDIR
ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE 414
P. BALU MARG
SVS ROAD
PRABHADEVI
MUMBAI-400025
ITS ZONAL OFFICE AT 7TH FLOOR
APEEJAY HOUSE
15
PARK STREET
KOLKATA-700016 AND ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR
Page No.# 6/93

KAMAKHYA TOWER
G.S. ROAD
CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI-781005
REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL MANAGER

VERSUS

SMT. RINA DAS AND 2 ORS
W/O ADHIR DAS
R/O VILL-CHOTO JALENGA BASTI
P.O.-BORO JALENGA
P.S.-DWABOND
DIST-CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788117
TEMP. RESIDENT OF HOSPITAL ROAD
P.O.-SILCHAR
P.S.-SILCHAR
DIST-CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788005

2:PRADIP KUMAR DAS
S/O HEMENDRA CHANDRA DAS
R/O VILL-AMBIKAPUR PT-IV
P.O.-JAIFARPUR
P.S.-SILCHAR
DIST-CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788005

3:SOURAV DAS
S/O PRADIP DAS
R/O VILL-AMBIKAPUR PT-IV
P.O.-JAIFARPUR
P.S.-SILCHAR
DIST-CACHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788005

————

Linked Case : CRP(IO)/258/2025

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK GANAPATI
MANDIR
ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE
Page No.# 7/93

414
P. BALU MARG
SVS ROAD
PRABHADEVI
MUMBAI-400025
ITS ZONAL OFFICE AT 7TH FLOOR
APEEJAY HOUSE
15
PARK STREET
KOLKATA-700016 AND ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR
KAMAKHYA TOWER
G.S. ROAD
CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI-781005
REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL MANAGER

VERSUS

ARIFUL HUSSAIN AND 3 ORS
S/O SAIDUL ISLAM
R/O TUBUKI GRANT
P.S.- KAMPUR
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782137

2:KHALILUDDIN ANCHARY
S/O ABDUL MANNAF
R/O ROWMARI
P.S.- BATADRAVA
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782125

3:AMIR HUSSAIN
S/O SAIDUL ISLAM
R/O TUBUKI GRANT
P.S.- KAMPUR
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782137

4:NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
NAGAON BRANCH
NAGAON
ASSAM
Page No.# 8/93

PIN-782001

Linked Case : CRP(IO)/187/2025

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
HAVING ITS CORPORATE AND REGISTERED OFFICE AT E-8
EPIP
RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA
SITAPURA
JAIPUR
RAJASTHAN
INDIA
PIN-302022 AND ONE OF THE BRANCH OFFICES AT B.R. ARCADE
3RD FLOOR
OPPOSITE TO PRIYA PALACE HOTEL
21
JANAPATH
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-781007
KAMRUP
ASSAM

VERSUS

MD EKRAMUL HUSSAINAND 2 ORS.

S/O ABDUL HAKIM
P/R/O VILL- UTTAR PUTA KALONG
MAZULI
P.S.- RUPAHIHAT
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-781318

2:DIBYA MORAN
S/O MODESWAR MORAN
R/O VILL- BETONI
P.S.- DIGBOI
P.O.- MAMORONI (MAKUM)
DIST- TINSUKIA
ASSAM
PIN-786170

3:DIPEN TANTI
S/O SAMARU TANTI
R/O VILL- PANKIAL GAON
P.S.- GOLAGHAT
Page No.# 9/93

DIST- GOLAGHAT
PIN-785702

Linked Case : CRP/141/2023

BILLAL HUSSAIN @ BILLAL HASSAN
S/O ABDUL GOFUR
R/O VILL- NEAR GARAM
DABONDIA
P.O.-GUNIALGURI
P.S.-KALGACHIA
DIST- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-

VERSUS

WAZED ALI AND ANR
S/O ATOWAR RAHMAN
R/O VILL-BANGHUGI
P.O.-BANGHUGI
P.S.-KALGACHIA
DIST-BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-781319

2:ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER
ADDRESS- 3RD FLOOR
KAMAKHYA TOWER
ROAD
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-781005

Linked Case : CRP(IO)/121/2025

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT E-8
EPIP
RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA
SITAPURA
JAIPUR
RAJASTHAN
INDIA PIN- 302022 AND ONE OF THE BRANCH OFFICES AT B.R. ARCADE
3RD FLOOR
OPPOSITE TO PRIYA PALACE HOTEL
Page No.# 10/93

21
JANAPATH
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI- 781007
KAMRUP.

VERSUS

HANUFA KHATUN AND 3 ORS
W/O- ABDUL HEKIM

R/O- DAKHIN KHATOWAL
P.O- TARABARI
P.S- RUPAHIHAT
DIST-NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782125

2:IMDADUL HOQUE
S/O- SAHIDULLAH

R/O- KADAMANIPATHAR
P.S- JURIA
DIST-NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782124

3:MD MAIZUL HOQUE
S/O- MD. ALI HUSSAIN

R/O- LALUNGGAON
P.O- KASHORI

P.S- JURIA
DIST-NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782124

4:THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM

————

Page No.# 11/93

Linked Case : CRP/140/2023

MOSTAFIZUR RAHMAN @ MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN AND ANR
S/O AZAHAR ALI
R/O VILL-MOINBARI
P.O.-NIZ MOINBARI
P.S.-KALGACHIA
DIST-BARPETA
ASSAM (BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER
PETITIONER NO. 2)

2: AZAHAR ALI
S/O MAYNAL HAQUE
R/O VILL-MOINBARI
P.O.-NIZ MOINBARI
P.S.-KALGACHIA
DIST-BARPETA
ASSAM
VERSUS

WAZED ALI AND ANR
S/O ATOWAR RAHMAN
R/O VILL-BANGHUGI
P.O.-BANGHUGI
P.S.-KALGACHIA
DIST-BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-781319

2:ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER
ADDRESS- 3RD FLOOR
KAMAKHYA TOWER
ROAD
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-781005

Linked Case : CRP/44/2025

SUBARNALATA DAS
W/O LATE ANJAN KUMAR DAS
RESIDENCE OF M.C ROAD
UZAN BAZAR
PANBAZAR
DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
Page No.# 12/93

PHONE NO- 8638739454

VERSUS

MAHESWARI INDUSTRIES AND 2 ORS
CARE OF MAHESH KUMAR
P
S. JALUKBARI
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM (OWNER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE NO. AS 01 MC 7520)

2:AMRIT KOCH
MANIK KOCH
VILL- BOKO
DIST- KAMRUP (R)
ASSAM (DRIVER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE NO. AS-01 MC-7520)

3:UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED
GODREJ BUILDING
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM

Linked Case : CRP(IO)/339/2025

VERSUS

SMT. PRANITA BISWAS AND 2 ORS
W/O SRI UDAY BISWAS
R/O VILL- OUJARI
P.O.- BAGHARA
P.S.- MORIGAON
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782105

2:CHANDRA BORDOLOI
S/O SRI DHIRSINGH BORDOLOI
R/O VILL- OUJARI
P.O.- BAGHARA
P.S.- MORIGAON
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782105

3:UDAY BISWAS
S/O LATE JATIN BISWAS
R/O VILL- OUJARI
P.O.- BAGHARA
P.S.- MORIGAON
DIST- MORIGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 782105

Linked Case : CRP(IO)/134/2025

ASSAM

VERSUS

RUPAMONI BANIA BORA AND 2 ORS.

W/O DHIREN BORA
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILL- NALKATA BOWALGURI
P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR
DIST- LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM AND PRESENT RESIDENT OF C/O MANTU DAS
VILLAGE- BARMURIKONA KARDOITALA
P.S. NALBARI
DISTRICT- NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781335

2:MD SADDAM HUSSAIN
SON OF LATE ZABBAR ALI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHINATOLIA
P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR
DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN-787001

3:MD BULBUL HUSSAIN
SON OF JABBAR ALI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHUKULI BHARIA
P.S.- NORTH LAKHIMPUR
DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN-787001

Linked Case : CRP/106/2024

MINESWAR GOGOI
S/O- LATE ADHIRAM GOGOI
R/O- NO. 3 MAHIMALIA
P.O. HABICHUKIA
P.S. GHILADHARI
DIST. GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785603.

VERSUS

UTTAM GOGOI AND 2 ORS.

Page No.# 15/93

S/O- SRI BHUGESWAR GOGOI
R/O- CHUTIAGAON
BOKOLAI
P.O. KAMARBANDHA ALI
P.S. AND DIST. GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785625.

2:TRIDIP MEDHI
S/O- NIRMAL CHANDRA MEDHI
C/O- J. DEKA
HOUSE NO. 7
RUPNAGAR
SARBANANDA PATH
NEAR SRIDHAN
VIMDABAN ASHRWAM
GUWAHATI
DIST.KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781032.

3:SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
JORHAT BRANCH
SECOND FLOOR
CITY PLAZA
OPPOSITE OF ELEYE CINEMA HALL
GAR ALI
P.O. AND DIST. JORHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785001. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

Linked Case : CRP/32/2025

BIJIT GONDHIA @ BIJIT GANDHIA AND ANR
S/O- THOLOK GANDHIA
R/O- BONGAL GAON
P.O- DERGAON
P.S- DERGAON
DIST- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785614

2: MRIDU SPONDON GONDHIA
S/O SRI BIJIT GONDHIA
R/O- BONGAL GAON
P.O- DERGAON
P.S- DERGAON
DIST- GOLAGHAT
Page No.# 16/93

ASSAM
PIN- 785614 (BEING MINOR
REPRESENTED BY PETITIONER NO. 1)
VERSUS

NRIPEN SAIKIA AND ANR
S/O- LATE UMESWAR SAIKIA
R/O- HATIAKHOWA
P.O- HATIAKHOWA
P.S- DERGAON
DIST- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN- 785626

2:NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
GOLAGHAT BRANCH
HEMCHANDRA GOSWAMI PATH
P.O.- GOLAGHAT
DIST- GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
PIN-785621
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER

–

Linked Case : CRP(IO)/332/2025

ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK GANAPATI
MANDIR
ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE 414
P. BALU MARG
SVS ROAD
PRABHADEVI
MUMBAI-400025
ITS ZONAL OFFICE AT 7TH FLOOR
APEEJAY HOUSE
15
PARK STREET
KOLKATA-700016 AND ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR
KAMAKHYA TOWER
G.S. ROAD
CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWHATI-781005
REPRESENTED BY THE LEGAL MANAGER

VERSUS

MUJAMMIL HOQUE AND ANR
Page No.# 17/93

S/O CHAN MIYA
R/O JURIPAR
P.S.- KACHUA
DIST- NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782426

2:CHESONG BEY
S/O KAMSING BEY
R/O ANJOKPANI
P.S.- ANJOKPANI
DIST- KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
PIN-782139

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
For the petitioner (s) : Mr. T. Kalita, Advocate
Mr. M. Dutta, Advocate
Mr. A. J. Saikia, Advocate
Mr. M. Saikia, Advocate
Mr. A. H. Sarkar, Advocate

For the respondent (s) : Mr. D. Nath, Sr. Govt. Advocate
Mr. R. Goswami, Advocate
Mr. P. J. Barman, Advocate
Mr. P. K. Das, Advocate
Ms. A. Roy, Advocate
Mr. A. Roy, Advocate
Mr. R. Borpujari, Advocate

Date on which judgment is reserved : 09.12.2025

Date of pronouncement of judgment : 18.02.2026

Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment? : NA

Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced? : Yes
Page No.# 18/93

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
petitioners as well as the learned counsels for the respondents in
the present batch of applications. This Court has also heard Mr.
D. Nath, the learned Senior Government Advocate who
represents the Transport Department and the Home Department,
of the Government of Assam and Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned
counsel who was requested to assist this Court.

PREFACE

2. The present batch of Applications filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution challenge the various orders passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (for short, ‘the learned
Tribunals’) constituted under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act of 1988’).

3. The Applicants herein who are the claimants in the claim
proceedings are aggrieved by the orders rejecting their claim
applications on the ground that Section 166 (3) of the Act of
1988 does not permit entertaining a claim application beyond a
period of six months from the date of occurrence of accident
whereas the Applicants who are Insurance Companies are
aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Tribunals whereby
the claims proceedings instituted beyond a period of six months
Page No.# 19/93

from the date of occurrence of the accident have been
entertained by condoning the delay.

4. This Court taking into account the Motor Vehicles
(Amendment) Act, 2019 (for short, ‘the Amending Act‘); the
Rules framed therein under by the Central Government and the
directions passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Gohar
Mohammed vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and

Others, reported in (2023) 4 SCC 381 impleaded the Home

Department as well as the Transport Department of the
Government of Assam in one of the applications, i.e. CRP(IO)
No.111/2024.

ISSUE

5. The question which arise in the present proceedings are as
to whether a claim application filed beyond a period of six
months from the date of occurrence of the accident can be
entertained and if not what are the learned Tribunals required to
do keeping in mind that the provisions of Chapters XI and XII of
the Act of 1988 are provided to grant compensation to the
beneficiary or the victim if on account of a motor vehicle accident
it results in death or bodily injury?

6. For deciding the issue as formulated above, i.e. whether the
learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal would have the power to
Page No.# 20/93

accept a claim petition filed beyond the period stipulated in
Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988, and if not, what steps are
required to be taken by the learned Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, this Court at the outset find it relevant to take note of
the changes brought into effect by the Amending Act, Central
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 framed by the Central Government
and the Assam Motor Vehicle Rules, 2013 framed by the State of
Assam.

ANALYSIS OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS

7. The Amending Act came into effect on 01.04.2022. The
Amending Act completely changed the procedure to make claims
under the Act of 1988. The Central Government also carried out
various amendments to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989
(for short, ‘the Rules of 1989’).

8. Chapter XI of the Act of 1988 was completely substituted by
the Amending Act. The heading of Chapter XI reads as
“Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks.”

9. Section 146 of the Act of 1988 imposes a mandatory
requirement that every motor vehicle has to be insured with a
certificate of Insurance. Sub-Section (2) of the Section 146 of the
Act of 1988 exempts the Motor Vehicles owned by the Central
Government or State Government.

Page No.# 21/93

10. Section 149 of the Act of 1988 casts an obligation upon the
Insurance Company to take certain steps upon receiving
information of the Accident. The information received could be
from either of the following sources:

(i) Information given by the claimants; or

(ii) Information through Accident Information Report; or

(iii) Otherwise-meaning thereby information from any other
source.

11. In terms with the said Section, it is obligatory for the
Insurance Companies to have an officer designated for
processing the settlement claims and to make an offer to the
claimant for settlement before the Claims Tribunal within 30 days
after following the prescribed procedure by the Central
Government. Sub-section (3) of Section 149 of the Act of 1988
further mandates what the Claims Tribunal is required to do
when the Insurance Company makes an offer in terms with
Section (2) of Section 149. Section 149(3) of the Act of 1988 is
reproduced herein below:-

” (3) If, the claimant to whom the offer is made under sub-section

(2),–

(a) accepts such offer,–

(i) the Claims Tribunal shall make a record of such settlement,
Page No.# 22/93

and such claim shall be deemed to be settled by consent; and

(ii) the payment shall be made by the insurance company
within a maximum period of thirty days from the date of
receipt of such record of settlement;

(b) rejects such offer, a date of hearing shall be fixed by the
Claims Tribunal to adjudicate such claim on merits.”

From the very reading of Section 149(3) of the Act of
1988, it would appear that at the instance of the Insurance
Company, a claim for compensation can be settled or initiated if
the offer given by the Insurance Company is rejected by the
claimant. This is one of the modes permissible for initiation of a
proceedings before the Claims Tribunals.

12. This Court would now deal with the other provisions of
Chapter XI of the Act of 1988 which correlates with Section 149
of the Act of 1988.

13. Section 152 of the Act of 1988 stipulates that the person
against whom a claim is made, is obligated under the law, on
demand, to disclose whether he/she was insured in respect to
that liability by any policy issued under the provisions of Chapter
XI or would have been so insured, if the insurer had not avoided
or canceled the policy. It is the statutory mandate that the
person against whom the claim is made, cannot refuse to give
such particulars with respect to the Insurance Policy as specified
Page No.# 23/93

in the Certificate of Insurance issued in respect thereof.
Therefore by this process of disclosure, the Investigating Officer
or the claimant can intimate the Insurance Company about the
Accident and then the Insurance Company is statutorily obligated
to do the needful in terms with Section 149 of the Act of 1988.

14. Section 159 of the Act of 1988 casts a duty upon the Police
Officer to prepare an Accident Information Report to facilitate the
settlement of the claim in such form and manner, within three
months and containing such particulars and submit the same to
the Claims Tribunal and such other agency as may be prescribed.
This Accident Information Report is one of the modes permissible
for initiating a proceeding before the Claims Tribunal as would
appear from a reading of Section 166(4) of the Act of 1988
which this Court would discuss later. Apart from that, the
Accident Information Report is one of the modes by which
information can be received by the Insurance Company for
settlement in terms with Section 149 of the Act of 1988. Section
159 being relevant is reproduced herein under:

“159. Information to be given regarding accident. – The police officer

shall, during the investigation, prepare an accident information
report to facilitate the settlement of claim in such form and manner,
within three months and containing such particulars and submit the
same to the Claims Tribunal and such other agency as may be
Page No.# 24/93

prescribed.”

15. Section 160 of the Act of 1988 further imposes an
obligation upon the Registering Authority or the Officer-in-Charge
of a police station upon being required by a person who alleges
that he/she is entitled to claim compensation in respect of an
accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle or by an
insurer against whom a claim has been made in respect to any
motor vehicle to furnish to that person or to that insurer as the
case may be, on payment of a prescribed fee, any information at
the disposal of the said authority or the said police officer
relating to the identification marks and other particulars of the
vehicle and the name and address of the person who was using
the vehicle at the time of the accident or was insured by it, and
the property if any damaged in such form, within such time as
the Central Government may prescribe. This provision also aids
the claimant, Investigating Officer as well as the Insurance
Company so that resolution of the claim proceedings can be
made at the earliest by taking action in terms with Section 149
as well as Section 159 of the Act of 1988. The said provisions
also confer a right upon the claimant to obtain information not
only for intimating the Insurer under Section 149 of the Act of
1988, but also provide information for filing a claim application
under Section 166(1) of the Act of 1988.

Page No.# 25/93

16. Section 161 of the Act of 1988 stipulates the special
provisions as regards compensation in case of hit and run motor
accidents. A cursory look at Section 161 of the Act of 1988 would
show that the concept of a hit and run motor accident indicates
that the compensation to be paid is in respect to cases where the
vehicle which had caused the accident cannot be identified with.
Consequently, the owner, driver as well as the Insurer of the
offending vehicle are also not identifiable. The Act of 1988
therefore provides the necessity of a Scheme to be made by the
Central Government in terms with Section 161 (3) of the Act of
1988.

17. Section 164 of the Act of 1988 stipulates payment of
compensation in case of death or grievous hurt, etc. The said
Section being relevant is reproduced herein under:-

“164. Payment of compensation in case of death or grievous hurt, etc.

– (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other
law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law,
the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be
liable to pay in the case of death or grievous hurt due to any
accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, a compensation, of
a sum of five lakh rupees in case of death or of two and a half lakh
rupees in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim, as
the case may be.

(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the
Page No.# 26/93

claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or
grievous hurt in respect of which the claim has been made was due
to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle
or of the vehicle concerned or of any other person.

(3) Where, in respect of death or grievous hurt due to an accident
arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation has been paid
under any other law for the time being in force, such amount of
compensation shall be reduced from the amount of compensation
payable under this section.”

18. Sub-section (1) of Section 164 starts with a non-obstinate
Clause, meaning thereby that notwithstanding anything
contained in the Act of 1988 or in any other law for the time
being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner
of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer shall be liable to
pay in the case of death or grievous hurt due to an accident
arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, a compensation of a
sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs only) in the case of
death or Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand only) in
the case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim, as the
case may be.

19. It is of importance to note that in contradistinction to
Section 161 of the Act of 1988, a very reading of Sub-section (1)
of Section 164 of the Act of 1988 shows that the owner of the
Page No.# 27/93

motor vehicle or the authorized insurer is identifiable, unlike in
the case falling within the ambit of Section 161.

In terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 164, the claimant is
not required to plead or establish that the death or grievous hurt
in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any
wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or
of the vehicle concerned or of any other person.

Sub-section (3) of Section 164 further stipulates that where
in respect of death or grievous hurt due to an accident arising
out of the use of a motor vehicle, an amount of compensation
has been paid under any other law for the time being in force,
such amount of compensation shall be reduced from the amount
of compensation payable under Section 164.

In other words, a conjoint reading of all the three
Sub-sections of Section 164 of the Act of 1988 would show that
when the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer is
identifiable, the claimant in the case of death or the victim who
suffers grievous injury as the case may be, would be entitled to
Rs.5,00,000/- in the case of death and Rs.2,50,000/- in the case
of grievous hurt respectively without providing any wrongful act
or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or the vehicle
concerned or any other person. It is also very pertinent to take
Page No.# 28/93

note of that Section 164 of the Act of 1988 on its own does not
mention where the claim application is required to be filed. It
appears that from a reading of the Explanation to Section 165 of
the Act of 1988, that the application is required to be filed in the
Claims Tribunal.

20. This Court at this stage also finds it appropriate to observe
that a reading of Section 161 and Section 164 of the Act of 1988
makes it clear that the compensation payable is only in cases of
death or grievous hurt but not in case of any bodily injury or
damage to property. This aspect would be relevant when this
Court analyses Section 165 and Section 166 of the Act of 1988 in
the later segments of the present judgment.

21. Section 164(C) of the Act of 1988 empowers the Central
Government to make Rules. In view of the Amending Act, it is
also relevant to take note of that the Rules of 1989 were
amended whereby Rule 150A was inserted. Rule 150A being
relevant is reproduced herein under:-

“150A. Procedure for investigation of road accident.- The procedure to
be followed for investigation of all accidents arising out of the use of motor
vehicles shall be in accordance with Annexure-XIII and in the manner of
submission and form, including electronic submission on such Portal as may be
specified.”

22. Before analyzing Rule 150A of the Rules of 1989, it is also
Page No.# 29/93

important to note that Section 164D of the Act of 1988
empowers the State Government to make Rules in respect to the
area not reserved to Central Government under Section 164C of
the Act of 1988. The State of Assam had also framed a set of
Rules namely the Assam Motor Vehicle Rules, 2003 (for short,
‘the Assam Rules of 2003’) which this Court would clear at a later
stage while dealing with the Section 176 of the Act of 1988. It is
important to take note of Chapter IX of the Assam Rules of 2003
with the heading, ‘Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’.

23. Before proceeding to Chapter XII of the Act of 1988, let this
Court deal with Rule 150A read with Annexure XIII of the Rules
of 1989.

24. Rule 150A of the Act of 1988 stipulates that the procedure
delineated at Annexure-XIII are required to be followed for
investigation of all accidents arising out of the use of motor
vehicles and the manner of submission of forms including
electronic submission on such portal as may be specified.

25. Now let this Court deal with some of the salient provisions
of Annexure-XIII to the Rules of 1989. The procedure detailed
out at Annexure XIII relates to the procedure for investigation of
Motor Vehicle Accident. Apart from the procedure stipulated
therein, various Forms have also been prescribed.

Page No.# 30/93

Clause 1 of Annexure-XIII stipulates that in the event of a
road accident, the investigation must be started immediately on
receipt of information by the Police Officer of the police station
concerned. The Investigating Officer shall inspect the site of the
accident, take photographs/videos of the scene and the vehicle
involved, followed by preparation of the site plan drawn to scale
as to indicate the width of the road(s) as the case may be and
other relevant factors including the persons and the vehicles
involved in the accident. In a case where the victim is injured,
the Investigating Officer is required to take photographs of the
injured in the hospital and shall conduct spot enquiry, examining
the eyewitnesses/bystanders. The intimation regarding the
accident is required to be furnished by the Investigating Officer
within 48 hours to the Claims Tribunal known as First Information
Accident Report (FAR) in Form I. A perusal of Form I provides the
various details which are to be furnished by the Investigating
Officer. The effect of submission of the FAR before the Claims
Tribunal by the Investigating Officer would lead to registration of
a case before the Claims Tribunal as would appear from Clause
18 of Annexure-XIII which this Court would deal in detail later.

26. Clause 2 of Annexure-XIII stipulates that the FAR in Form I
is required to be sent to the Nodal Officer of the Insurance
Company after obtaining the particulars of insurance policy.

Page No.# 31/93

Additionally, the victim(s), legal representative(s), State Legal
Services Authority shall also be provided with the copy of the
Form I and the same must be uploaded in the website of the
State Police, if available. The above aspect now if correlated with
Section 149 of the Act of 1988 as discussed above would show
that on the basis of the FAR, the Insurance Company can initiate
steps through its nodal officer for submission of an offer to
claimants through the Claims Tribunal and if the offer is accepted
by the claimant, a consent award would be passed and if not, a
proceedings would be initiated by the Claims Tribunal for
adjudicating on the quantum of compensation as well as
entitlement of the compensation.

27. Clause 3 of Annexure-XIII stipulates that the Investigating
Officer shall furnish the rights of the victim of the road accident
and flow chart of the Scheme mentioned in Form II, to the
victims or their legal representatives within 10 days of the
Accident. The Investigating Officer shall also file a copy of the
Form II along with the Detailed Accident Report (DAR). A perusal
of Form II would show that it explains the various rights which
are available to the victim. It is of importance to note the time
period prescribed is 10 days from the date of occurrence of the
accident. This Form along with the FAR would enable the legal
representative or the victim to intimate the Insurance Company
Page No.# 32/93

in terms with Section 149 of the Act of 1988, if the Insurance
Company in the meantime has not submitted the offer to the
claimant. The chart which is to accompany the Form II also
provides the timelines and the details as to how the claim
settlement/resolution would take place.

It is of importance to note that a perusal of Form II as well
as flow chart which is attached to the Form II does not provide
information that the Claimant has a right to file Claim Application
under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 and that such application is
required to be filed within 6(six) months from the date of
occurrence of the Accident. It is the opinion of this Court that the
said aspect ought to have been included in Form II. The Central
Government may consider to do the needful.

At this stage, it is also relevant to note that the Gauhati
High Court also on its website provides a MACT Information
Portal which not only provides a tutorial in both Assamese and
English, but also provides in both Assamese and English, all
information including a claim calculator which roughly gives what
compensation a victim/legal representative would be entitled. It
is also of relevance that the MACT Portal is widely circulated by
the State Legal Services Authority as well as the District Legal
Services Authorities.

Page No.# 33/93

28. Clause 4 and Clause 5 relates Forms to be submitted by the
driver and the owner respectively to the Investigating Officer. In
terms with Clause 6, the Investigating Officer is required to
submit the Interim Accident Report (IAR) to the Claims Tribunal
within 50 days of the Accident. The IAR shall be accompanied
with the documents mentioned therein and the copy of the IAR
along with the documents shall be furnished to the Insurance
Company of the vehicle involved in the accident, the
victim/claimant, State Legal Services Authority, the insurer and

the General Insurance Counsel. Therefore, on the 50th day of the
accident in view of the obligation cast upon the Investigating
Officer, information is again provided to the victims/legal
representative about what steps are being taken by the
Investigating Officer.

29. Clauses 7 to 10 of Annexure-XIII stipulates that various
verifications are to be carried out by the Investigating Officer as
well as the Insurance Company of the vehicle(s) involved in the
accident, which would include the verification of the information
provided in Form III and Form IV by the driver and the owner
respectively, in terms with the information available on Vahan or
by obtaining confirmation in writing from the Registering
Authority/person purported to have issued the same or such
further investigation or verification as deemed necessary. This
Page No.# 34/93

verification report shall be filed by the Investigating Officer in
Form X before the Claims Tribunal along with the Detailed
Accident Report (DAR).

30. Clause 12 of Annexure-XIII mandates the requirement of
submission of the DAR within 90 days of the accident. Apart from
that what documents are to be filed along with the DAR is also
stipulated. Clause 12 of Annexure-XIII being relevant is
reproduced herein below:-

“12. DAR to be submitted by the Investigating Officer before the Claims

Tribunal.– The Investigating Officer shall complete the verification of

the information and documents further in this Annexure, and submit
the DAR in Form VII to the Claims Tribunal, within ninety (90) days
from the date of the accident. The DAR shall be accompanied with the
following documents:–

(a) Site Plan as per Form VIII;

(b) Mechanical Inspection Report as per Form IX;

(c) Verification Report as per Form X;

(d) Report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974).”

31. Clause 13 of the Annexure XIII obligates the Investigating
Officer to furnish a copy of the DAR to the victim(s) of the
accident, owner/driver as well as to the Nodal officer of the
Insurance Company, General Insurance Council and the State
Page No.# 35/93

Legal Services Authority. It is relevant to note that by the 90 th
day from the date of occurrence of the accident, the victim/legal
representative is further informed about all details of the
accident and the investigation carried out.

32. Clause 17 of Annexure XIII is of vital importance whereby
the Claims Tribunal is empowered to extend the period of filing
the IAR and/or DAR in view of the reasons stipulated in the said
Clause. The said Clause 17 also empowers the Claims Tribunal to
oversee whether the Investigating Officer is performing the
statutory obligations as mandated. The Claims Tribunal is also
empowered to issue directions if within the time stipulations such
actions are not completed. Clause 17 being relevant, the same is
quoted herein below:-

“17. Extension of time to file IAR and DAR.– Where the Investigating

Officer is unable to file the IAR within fifty (50) days and/or the DAR
within ninety (90) days for reasons beyond his control, such as in
cases of hit and run accidents; cases where the parties reside
outside the jurisdiction of the Court; where the driving licence is
issued outside the jurisdiction of the Court, or where the victim(s)
has suffered grievous injuries and is undergoing continuous
treatment, the Investigating Officer shall approach the Claims
Tribunal for extension of time to file IAR or DAR, whereupon the
Claims Tribunal shall extend the time as it considers appropriate in
the facts and circumstances of the case.”

Page No.# 36/93

33. Now let this Court conjointly analyze Clauses 18 and 21 of
Annexure-XIII. Clause 18 of Annexure XIII is of utmost
importance as it relates to registration of a case without any
application filed by the claimant. The Clause imposes a
responsibility upon the Claims Tribunal to examine whether the
FAR, IAR and the DAR are complete in all respects. If the DAR is
complete in all respects, the Claims Tribunal shall fix a date for
the appearance of the driver, owner, claimants, and eye
witnesses. The Investigating Officer shall be directed by the
Claims Tribunal to produce the said persons on the date so fixed
by the Claims Tribunal. Now in the context of Clause 18, if this
Court takes note of Clause 21, it would show that the Claims
Tribunal shall treat the DAR as a claim petition for compensation
under Section 166(4) of the Act of 1988. Be that as it may, the
Claims Tribunal shall register the DAR as a claim petition only
after the appearance of the claimant. This aspect is important as
would be seen at the later stage of the present analysis. Clause
21 further stipulates that if the claimants have filed a separate
claim petition, the DAR may be tagged along with the claim
petition. In this respect, this Court also finds it pertinent to take
note of a notification dated 11.06.2024 bearing No.42 issued by
the Registrar General of the Gauhati High Court dated
11.06.2024 wherein the procedure to be followed by the Claims
Page No.# 37/93

Tribunals within the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court are
notified. The Notification sets down the procedure when the
FIR/FAR/IAR/DAR is filed in another district and the claim
application is filed in another district. The said Notification also
sets forth what procedure is required to be followed when the
FIR/FAR/IAR/DAR is filed in any district of any State within the
jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court and the Claim Application
is filed in any other district of a different State within the
jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court. The contents of the said
Notification is reproduced herein below for convenience:-

NOTIFICATION NO. 42

Dated Guwahati, the 11th of June,2024

In continuation to Notification No. 05 dated 30-01-2023, it is
hereby notified that in MAC cases: Court and consequently the
FIR/FAR/IAR/DAR is filed in District ‘A’ and the claimants file a claim
application under Sections 164/166 of the M.V. Act in District ‘B’ in the
same State, then the Claims Tribunal in District ‘B’ shall call for the DAR
and other relevant documents from the Claims Tribunal in District ‘A’.
After receipt of such requisition, the Claims Tribunal in District ‘A’ shall
close the DAR and transfer the DAR to the Claims Tribunal in District ‘B’.

A Motor accident takes place and consequently the
FIR/FAR/IAR/DAR is filed in District ‘A’ of any State under the
jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court and the claimants file a claim
application under Sections 164/166 of the M.V. Act in District ‘B’ in a
different State under the jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court, then the
Claims Tribunal in District ‘B’ shall call for the DAR and other relevant
Page No.# 38/93

documents from the Claims Tribunal in District ‘A’. After receipt of such
requisition, the Claims Tribunal in District ‘A’ shall close the DAR and
transfer the DAR to the Claims Tribunal in District ‘B’.

This Notification shall come into effect immediately

By Order,
Sd/- S. K. Poddar
REGISTRAR GENERAL
Dated the 11th June, 2024

34. Another very important aspect of Clause 21 is the
stipulation of the procedure to be followed by the Claims Tribunal
when the FAR is filed. The Claims Tribunal is required to register
the FAR as a Miscellaneous Application and the IAR as well as
the DAR shall be taken on record in the same Miscellaneous
Application. The registration of a Miscellaneous Proceedings by
the Claims Tribunal upon submission of FAR aids the Claims
Tribunals to keep a tab on the statutory obligations cast upon the
Investigating Officer as well as the Insurance Company. The
Claims Tribunal is empowered to enquire as to whether the
concerned Insurance Company has initiated steps in terms with
Section 149 of the Act of 1988. Clause 18 and Clause 21 being
relevant is reproduced herein under:-

18. Examination of FAR, IAR and DAR by the Claims Tribunal.- The
Claims Tribunal shall examine whether the FAR, IAR and the DAR are complete
in all respects. If the DAR is complete in all respects, the Claims Tribunal shall
fix a date for the appearance of the driver(s), owner(s), claimant(s) and the eye
witness(es). The Investigating Officer shall produce them on the date so fixed.

Page No.# 39/93

The Investigating Officer shall also intimate the date so fixed by the Claims
Tribunal to the Nodal Officer of the Insurance Company and the Insurance
Company shall ensure appearance on the date so fixed. If the FAR, IAR, and
DAR are not complete, the Claims Tribunal shall direct the Investigating Officer
to complete the same and shall fix a date for the said completion.

21. Claims Tribunal shall treat DAR as a claim petition for
compensation under sub-section (4) of section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988.- (1) The Claims Tribunal shall treat the DAR filed by the
Investigating Officer as a claim petition under section (4) of section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, where the Investigating Officer is unable to
produce the claimant(s) on the first date of hearing, the Claims Tribunal shall
register the DAR as a claim petition after the appearance of the claimant(s).

(2) Where the claimant(s) have filed a separate claim petition, the DAR may be
tagged along with the claim petition.

(3) If the Report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2
of 1974) has not been filed at the time of filing of the DAR, the Claims Tribunal
may either wait till filing of the Report under Section 173 of the said Code of
Criminal Procedure or record the statement of the eye witness(es) to satisfy
itself with respect to the negligence before passing the award.

(4) The Claims Tribunal shall register the FAR as a Miscellaneous application
and the IAR as well as DAR shall be taken on record in the same Miscellaneous
application.”

35. Clause 23 of the Annexure-XIII is related to Section 149 of
the Act of 1988 in as much as it stipulates that upon receipt of
the copy of the First Information Report (FAR), the Insurance
Company shall appoint a designated officer for that case within
10 days and the designated officer shall be responsible for
Page No.# 40/93

dealing/processing of that case and to pass a reasoned decision
in writing with respect to the compensation payable to the
claimant in accordance with law. In terms with Clause 24 of
Annexure XIII, a duty is cast upon the Insurance Company to
appoint a Nodal Officer and intimate the Name, Address, Phone
Numbers, Mobile Number, Email Address of the Nodal officer of
the State Police and all Investigating Officers of the State Police
dealing with the investigation of motor accident claims so that
the Investigating Officers can send relevant Forms and
documents to the Nodal Officer by Email.

36. For the purpose of dealing with the present issue in hand,
the above provisions of Chapter XI of the Act of 1988 read with
Rule 150A of the Rules of 1989 and various Clauses of Annexure-
XIII analyzed above, would show that even without filing a Claim
Application by the claimant under Section 166 of the Act of 1988,
proceedings for payment of compensation for death or bodily
injury can be resolved. Various duties, obligations and
responsibilities are imposed upon the Investigating Officers, the
Insurance Companies, Owner, Driver as well as the Claims
Tribunals so that even without filing any Claim Application under
Section 166 of the Act of 1988, the legal representatives of the
deceased or the victim can be redressed. The Amending Act as
well as the amendment made to the Rules of 1989, in the
Page No.# 41/93

opinion of this Court, have led to a notable transformation of the
system of resolution of motor accident claim proceedings from
what existed prior to the Amending Act coming into force.

37. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now analyze
Chapter XII of the Act of 1988.

38. Chapter XII is with the heading “Claims Tribunals”. There
are Eleven (11) Sections in this Chapter. Section 165 of the Act of
1988 empowers the State Government to constitute one or more
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for such area as may be specified
in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for
compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or
bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles
or damages to any property of a third party so arising or both. As
observed earlier while Section 161 and Section 164 of the Act of
1988 provides compensation only on account of death or
grievous hurt whereas the Claims Tribunals are empowered upon
application filed under Section 166 (1) of the Act of 1988 to not
only adjudicate claims pertaining to death and grievous injury
but also any bodily injury to persons arising out of use of the
motor vehicle or damage to any property of a third party so
arising or both.

The Explanation to Sub-section (1) of Section 165 of the
Page No.# 42/93

Act of 1988, makes it clear that claims for compensation in
respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to
persons, arising out of the use of motor vehicles, would include
claims for compensation under Section 164 of the Act of 1988.
Sub-section (1) of Section 165 of the Act of 1988, being relevant
for the present proceedings is reproduced herein under:

“165. Claims Tribunals.–(1) A State Government may, by notification

in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunals (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims
Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the
purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of
accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising
out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a
third party so arising, or both.

Explanation.–For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that
the expression “claims for compensation in respect of accidents
involving the death of or bodily injury to persons arising out of the
use of motor vehicles” includes claims for compensation under
Section 164″.

39. Section 166 of the Act of 1988 refers to Application for
Compensation. The said Section being the crux of the issue
involved in the present proceedings is reproduced herein under:-

“166. Application for compensation.–( 1) An application for
compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in
Page No.# 43/93

sub-section (1) of section 165 may be made–

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b)

(b) by the owner of the property; or

(c) (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by
all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased;

(d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or
all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased,
as the case may be:

Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased
have not joined in any such application for compensation, the
application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the
legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives
who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the
application.

Provided further that where a person accepts compensation under
section 164 in accordance with the procedure provided under
Section 149, his claims petition before the Claims Tribunal shall
lapse.

(2) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be made, at the
option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having
jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the
Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the
claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of
whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form
Page No.# 44/93

and contain such particulars as may be prescribed:

(3) No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is
made within six months of the occurrence of the accident.

(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded
to under [section 159] as an application for compensation under this
Act.

(5) Notwithstanding anything in this Act of any other law for the
time being in force, the right of a person to claim compensation for
injury in an accident shall, upon the death of the person injured,
survive to his legal representatives, irrespective of whether the
cause of death is relatable to or had any nexus with the injury or
not.”

40. A perusal of Sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the Act of
1988 would show that an application for compensation arising
out of an accident of the nature specified in Sub-section (1) of
Section 165 may be made by any of the person(s) as mentioned
in Sub-Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 166 of the
Act of 1988.

41. At this stage, it will be pertinent to take note of the second
proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 166 which was inserted by
the Amending Act stipulating that where a person accepts
compensation in accordance with the procedure provided under
Section 149 of the Act of 1988, the claim application before the
Page No.# 45/93

Claims Tribunal shall lapse. In other words, both proceedings
under Section 149 and Section 166 (1) of the Act of 1988 can
simultaneously run but the proceedings under Section 149 of the
Act of 1988 results into a consent award {Section 149 (3) (a)} or
an Award under Section 149 (3) (b) read with Section 168 of the
Act of 1988, the proceedings filed under Section 166 (1) of the
Act of 1988 shall lapse.

It is also noteworthy to mention that the consent award in
terms with Section 149 (3) (a) of the Act of 1988 has to be
passed within six months from the date of the accident by the
Claims Tribunal in terms with Clause 27 of Annexure XIII.
However, if the offer made by the Insurance Company is not fair
or if the Insurance Company has any defence, the said award in
terms with Section 149(3) (b) of the Act of 1988 read with
Clause 29 of the Annexure XIII is required to be passed within 9
months from the date of the accident. The proceedings under
Section 149(3) (b) of the Act of 1988 are required to be carried
out in terms with Sections 168 and 169 of the Act of 1988.

42. Sub-section (2) of Section 166 stipulates the territorial
jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal to entertain the application
made under Sub-section (1) of Section 166. The claimant has the
option to file the claim application in any one of the following
Claims Tribunal, i.e.
Page No.# 46/93

(i) Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which
the accident occurred; or

(ii) Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business; or

(iii) Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose
jurisdiction the defendant resides.

It further stipulates that the Application form shall be in
such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed.
The Assam Rules of 2003 are Rules made under various
provisions of the Act of 1988 including provisions of the Act of
1988 including Section 176 of the Act of 1988. These Rules
prescribe the Form for filing Application before the Claims
Tribunal. Form 20 (A.C) of Schedule I is the said Form.

43. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to observe that by
virtue of Section 166 (2) of the Act of 1988, the Claimant has the
option to file the claim application in any one of the three Claims
Tribunals referred to above. It is however apposite to mention
that Section 159 of the Act of 1988 as well as various Clauses of
Annexure XIII of the Rules of 1989 would show that the
FAR/IAR/DAR would only be filed before the Claims Tribunal
under whose jurisdiction the accident occurred. It further
appears from a conjoint reading of Clause 21 of Annexure XIII
Page No.# 47/93

and the Notification issued by the Gauhati High Court dated
11.06.2024 that when a claim application is filed before a Claims
Tribunal other than the Claims Tribunal within whose jurisdiction
the accident occurred, the DAR would be transferred to the
Claims Tribunal. But in absence of a claim proceedings being
filed, it is only that Claims Tribunal within whose jurisdiction, the
FAR/IAR/DAR is filed would be able to decide the claim
proceedings.

44. Sub-section (3) of Section 166 stipulates that no application
for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six
months of the occurrence of the accident. In other words, the
Claims Tribunal has been only empowered to entertain a claim
application, if filed, within six months from the date of the
occurrence of the accident.

CAN THE CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ENTERTAIN A CLAIM APPLICATION
IF NOT FILED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE
ACCIDENT

45. Section 165(1) of the Act of 1988 would show that the
Claims Tribunals are created by the State Government by
issuance of Notifications. These Claims Tribunals are therefore
Statutory Tribunals. The power so conferred upon the Claims
Tribunals has to be within the confines of the Act of 1988 as well
as the Assam Rules of 2003. Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988
Page No.# 48/93

only empowers the Claims Tribunal to entertain an application
filed under Section 166(1) of the Act of 1988, if filed within six
months from the date of occurrence of the accident. No power
has been conferred by the legislature to condone the delay for
sufficient cause. At this stage, it is relevant to note that against
an award passed by the Claims Tribunal under Section 168 of the
Act of 1988, an appeal lies to the High Court under Section 173
of the Act of 1988. However, the second proviso to Section
173(1) of the Act of 1988 empowers the High Court to condone
the delay in filing the Appeal for sufficient cause. In this
perspective, it is also very apposite to observe the legislative
history which led to Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988 as it
stands today.

46. Section 110-A (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was the
pari materia provision in the repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
It read as under:-

“110-A. (3) No application for such compensation shall be
entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of
the accident:

Provided that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application
after the expiry of the said period of six months if it is satisfied that
the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the
application in time.”

Page No.# 49/93

47. A perusal of the above quoted provision would show that
the wording of Section 110-A (3) of the Act of 1939 is same as
Section 166 (3) of the Act of 1988 as inserted by the Amending
Act. The only notable difference is the proviso to Section 110A of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1934 which empowers the Claims
Tribunal to entertain an application after the expiry of the six
months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by
sufficient cause from making the application in time. Therefore,
by virtue of the proviso to Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1939, a power was conferred upon the Claims Tribunal to
condone the delay upon showing sufficient cause.

48. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was repealed by the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 which came into force on 01.07.1989. Section
166 (3) as it stood on 01.07.1989 is reproduced herein below:-

“166. (3) No application for such compensation shall be entertained

unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the
accident:

Provided that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application
after the expiry of the said period of six months but not later than
twelve months, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by
sufficient cause from making the application in time.”

49. A comparative reading of the above quoted provision with
Section 110A would show that difference between Section 166
Page No.# 50/93

(3) as it stood w.e.f. 01.07.1989 and Section 110A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939. Though the main Section is similarly worded
but w.e.f. 01.07.1989, the Claims Tribunal was only empowered
by the proviso to Section 166 (3) to entertain claim application
upon demonstrating sufficient cause upto 12 months from the
date of occurrence off the accident.

50. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the
observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhannalal vs. D.
P. Vijayvargiya and Others, reported in 1996 (4) SCC 652 wherein it

was observed that an application filed beyond the period of 12
months from the date of the accident cannot be entertained by
the Claims Tribunal as no discretion was left with the Claims
Tribunal to consider the circumstances why the claim application
could not be filed within the period of 12 months from the date
of the accident. Similar interpretation has also been given to
Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the
Supreme Court in BBM Enterprise vs. State of West Bengal, reported
in (2020) 9 SCC 448.

51. It is further relevant to take note of that Sub-section (3) of
Section 166 of the Act of 1988 was omitted by Section 53 of the
Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994, which came into force
w.e.f. 14.11.1994. The resultant effect of the said deletion of
Section 166 (3) of the Act of 1988 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 was that
Page No.# 51/93

there was no period of limitation prescribed for entertaining a
Claim Application. At this stage, it is pertinent to observe that in
view of the omission of Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988 w.e.f.
14.11.1994, a claimant falling within the category of persons
mentioned in Section 166 (1) of the Act of 1988 could file a
Claim Application at any point of time. This Court finds it relevant
to observe that as no limitation was prescribed, filing of delayed
claim application led to various logistical problems whereby not
only resolution of motor accident claims were delayed, but also
evidence were lost. This aspect not only effected the claimant,
but the owners/Insurance Companies lost valuable defence.
Apart from that when claim proceedings are filed after lapse of
many years, chances of misuse on account of lack of valuable
defence could not be ruled out.

52. By the Amending Act which came into force w.e.f.
01.04.2022, Section 166 (3) of the Act of 1988 was again re-
inserted, but without the proviso which empowered the Claims
Tribunal to condone the delay beyond six months from the date
of occurrence of the accident. The legislature by taking away the
power of the Claims Tribunal to entertain any application filed
beyond six months from the date of occurrence of the accident
made its legislative intent clear. At this stage, it also appears
from the analysis of Chapter XI, Rules of 1989 and Annexure XIII
Page No.# 52/93

of the Rules of 1989 that the Legislative Intent is for a quick and
speedy resolution of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims.

53. In the backdrop of the above, it is also ad rem that in the
present proceedings there is no challenge to Section 166(3) of
the Act of 1988. Therefore, within the confines of the jurisdiction
of what is to be decided is whether by virtue of Section 166(3) of
the Act of 1988 as it stands today, can the Claims Tribunal
entertain a claim Application if not filed within six months from
the date of occurrence of the accident.

54. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the claimants
have referred to certain judgments of various High Courts and
submitted that as Chapters XI and XII of the Act of 1988 are
beneficial pieces of legislation, Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963 (for short, ‘the Act of 1963’), can be applied to empower
the Claims Tribunal for extending the period. In that regard,
references were drawn to the following judgments:-

(i) M/s Shriram General Insurance Co. Limited vs. Anil , reported
in 2025 SCC OnLine KAR 17661;

(ii) Akshya Raj and Others vs. Ministry of Law and Justice
Legislative Department and Others, reported in
MANU/KE/0161/2023;

(iii) Smt. Ayiti Navaneetha and Another vs. the Union of India
Page No.# 53/93

and Others delivered by the learned Division bench of the

learned Telangana High Court in WP(C) Nos.1395 and
1396/2023;

(iv) The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance
Company Ltd vs. Ramu @ Ramesh, S/O Yallappa,
delivered by the learned Karnataka High Court in WP(C)
No.201961/2023.

55. The learned counsels for the Insurance Companies on the
other hand referred to the Judgment of the Learned Madhya
Pradesh High Court rendered in the case of Sabir Ali vs. Anurag,
reported in 2024 SCC Online MP 7900 wherein it was held that in
absence of a provision for condonation of delay, the Claims
Tribunal cannot condone the delay. It was also opined that the
inherent jurisdiction cannot also be exercised to condone the
delay.

56. This Court has duly perused the Judgments so delivered by
the Learned Telangana High Court, the Learned Kerala High
Court, as well as the Learned Karnataka High Court, referred to
herein above as well as the Judgment delivered by the Learned
Madhya Pradesh High Court.

57. The first set of Judgments as relied upon on behalf of the
counsels for the Claimants observes that Section 166 of the Act
Page No.# 54/93

of 1988 being a beneficial legislation, Section 5 of the Act of
1963 would duly apply. The Learned High Courts have also taken
a view that in view of Section 29(2) of the Act of 1963, the
provisions of Sections 4 to 24 can be applied.

58. Per contra, the Judgment relied upon by the learned
counsels appearing on behalf of the Insurance Companies, i.e.
the Judgment of the Learned Madhya Pradesh High Court
observed that the Claims Tribunal does not have the power to
condone the delay in absence of any provision for condonation of
delay.

59. In the previous segments of the instant Judgment, this
Court had quoted Section 165(1) of the Act of 1988. The said
provision empowers the State Government by notification in the
Official Gazette to constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunals for such area as may be specified in the Notification for
the purpose of adjudicating upon the claims for compensation in
respect of accidents involving the death or bodily injury to
persons arising out of the use of motor accidents or damages to
any property of a third party so arising or both. Therefore, the
Claims Tribunals being creation of the Act of 1988, the power
conferred upon the Claims Tribunals has to be within the
confines of the provisions of the Act of 1988. It is of importance
to note that the Claims Tribunals are statutory Tribunals and not
Page No.# 55/93

Courts. Under such circumstances, two questions arise for
consideration.

First as to whether the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the
Act of 1963’) can be made applicable taking into account that
Chapter XII of the Act of 1988 concerns beneficial and welfare
measures?

Secondly, by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Act of 1963, can
the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 (both inclusive) of the Act of
1963 be applied?

60. Let this Court take up the first question. It is pertinent to
first take note of the fact that the Claims Tribunals are not Courts
though may have trapping of Courts and as such the Act of 1963
cannot be made applicable to the Claims Tribunals. It is no
longer res integra that the Act of 1963 only applies to Courts and
not quasi-judicial bodies. As far back in the year 1969, in the
case of Town Municipal Council Athani vs. Presiding Officer, reported
in (1969) 1 SCC 873 the Supreme Court while dealing with a
question as to what applications are covered under Section 137
of the Schedule to the Limitation Act 1963 and observed that an
application made under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to a
Labour Court constituted under Section 7A of the said Act of
1947 would not come within the ambit of Article 137 of the
Page No.# 56/93

Schedule to the Act of 1963. Paragraph No.12 being relevant is
reproduced herein under:-

“12. This point, in our opinion, may be looked at from another angle

also. When this Court earlier held that all the articles in the third
division to the schedule, including Article 181 of the Limitation Act of
1908 governed applications under the Code of Civil Procedure only,
it clearly implied that the application must be presented to a Court
governed by the Code of Civil Procedure . Even the applications
under the Arbitration Act that were included within the third division
by amendment of Articles 158 and 178 were to be presented to
courts whose proceedings were governed by the Code of Civil
Procedure . At best, the further amendment now made enlarges the
scope of the third division of the schedule so as also to include
some applications presented to courts governed by the Code of
Criminal Procedure. One factor at least remains constant and that is
that the applications must be to courts to be governed by the
articles in this division. The scope of the various articles in this
division cannot be held to have been so enlarged as to include
within them applications to bodies other than courts, such as a
quasi-judicial tribunal, or even an executive authority. An Industrial
Tribunal or a Labour Court dealing with applications or references
under the Act are not courts and they are in no way governed either
by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Code of Criminal Procedure.
We cannot, therefore, accept the submission made that this article
will apply even to applications made to an Industrial Tribunal or a
Labour Court. The alterations made in the article and in the new Act
Page No.# 57/93

cannot, in our opinion, justify the interpretation that even
applications presented to bodies, other than courts, are now to be
governed for purposes of limitation by Article 137.”

(emphasis supplied upon the underlined portion)

61. In the case of Kerala State Electricity Board vs. T.P.
Kunhaliumma, reported in (1976) 4 SCC 634, a three Judges Bench

of the Supreme Court made an authoritative pronouncement that
the Act of 1963 applies only to courts, not to quasi-judicial
Tribunals. It also observed that so long an application is made
under any statute to a Civil Court, such application will be
covered under Section 137 of the Act of 1963. It was also
observed that where matters are referred for determination to a
Court by statutory provisions with no further provision, the
necessary implication would be that the Court would determine
the matter as a Court. This Court finds it apposite to mention
that the Supreme Court in the case of Kunhaliumma (supra)
observed in connection with the Telegraph Act, 1885, that as
Section 16 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 provided that the
application would have to be filed to the District Judge which is a
Court, the provisions of the Act of 1963 would be applicable.

The aforesaid principle of law was reiterated by the
Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Steel Corporation vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 58.

Page No.# 58/93

62. It is relevant to note that in terms with Section 164 and Section
166 of the Act of 1988, the claim application has to be filed only
before the Claims Tribunals which have been notified by the State
Government.

63. Therefore, from the above analysis, it is absolutely clear
that the Act of 1963 cannot be applied to the Claims Tribunal.

64. Now let this Court take up the second question as to
whether, by virtue of Section 29 (2) of the Act of 1963, the
provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Act of 1963 can be read into
the provisions of Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988. The said
question is also no longer res integra in view of the observation
of the Supreme Court at Paragraph No.33 of the Judgment in the
case of M.P. Steel Corporation (supra) wherein in the Supreme
Court observed that when a suit, appeal or application of the
description in the Schedule is to be filed in a Court under a
special or a local law, then only the provisions of Section 29(2)
would get attracted. Paragraph No.33 of the said Judgment being
relevant is reproduced herein under:-

“33. The sheet anchor in Mukri Gopalan was Section 29(2) of the
Limitation Act. Section 29(2) states:-

“29. ************************** Savings.– (1) (2) Where any

special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or
application a period of limitation different from the period
Page No.# 59/93

prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall
apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the
Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of
limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any
special or local law, the provisions contained in Sections
4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only insofar as, and to the extent
to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or
local law.”

A bare reading of this Section would show that the special or
local law described therein should prescribe for any suit, appeal or
application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed
by the schedule. This would necessarily mean that such special or
local law would have to lay down that the suit, appeal or application
to be instituted under it should be a suit, appeal or application of
the nature described in the schedule. We have already held that
such suits, appeals or applications as are referred to in the schedule
are only to courts and not to quasi-judicial bodies or Tribunals. It is
clear, therefore, that only when a suit, appeal or application of the
description in the schedule is to be filed in a court under a special or
local law that the provision gets attracted. This is made even clearer
by a reading of Section 29(3). Section 29(3) states:-

“29. * ********************* Savings.– (1)-(2) (3) Save

as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force
with respect to marriage and divorce, nothing in this Act shall
apply to any suit or other proceeding under any such law.”

Page No.# 60/93

When it comes to the law of marriage and divorce, the Section
speaks not only of suits but other proceedings as well. Such
proceedings may be proceedings which are neither appeals nor
applications thus making it clear that the laws relating to marriage
and divorce, unlike the law of limitation, may contain proceedings
other than suits, appeals or applications filed in courts. This again is
an important pointer to the fact that the entirety of the Limitation
Act including Section 29(2) would apply only to the three kinds of
proceedings mentioned all of which are to be filed in courts.”

65. The above analysis would make it clear that the provisions
of Section 29 (2) of the Act of 1963 cannot be applied to a claim
application and consequently, the provisions of Sections 4 to 24
of the Act of 1963, cannot be imported to confer jurisdiction
upon the Claims Tribunal to entertain any application beyond the
period of six months from the date of the occurrence of the
accident.

66. In addition to the above, it is also pertinent to note the
observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhannalal
(supra) while dealing with Section 166 (3) of the Act of 1988 as
it stood prior to 14.11.1994 wherein it was observed that the
power to condone was only limited to 12 months from the date
of the accident in view of the proviso contained in Section 166
(3) of the Act of 1988 which came into effect w.e.f. 01.07.1989.

Page No.# 61/93

67. This Court also finds it very pertinent to observe that
Section 166 (1) of the Act of 1988 empowers the persons
enlisted at Clause (a) to (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 166 of
the Act of 1988 to make an application. However, Section 166(3)
of the Act of 1988 only confers the jurisdiction upon the Claims
Tribunal to entertain such application if filed within a period of six
months from the date of the accident. The power to entertain
being a power conferred by the Statute, till Section 166(3) of the Act
of 1988 remains in the Statute Books as it stands, the Claims Tribunal
concerned would have no power to entertain any claim application
filed beyond the period of six months from the date of occurrence of
the accident.

68. In view of the above analysis, this Court with due respect to
the judgments rendered by the Learned Telangana High Court,
Learned Kerala High Court and Learned Karnataka High Court
would defer on the aspect pertaining to the applicability of the
Act of 1963 to Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988. This Court is of
the opinion that the Claims Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to
entertain a claim application if filed beyond six months from the
date of occurrence of the accident in view of Section 166(3) of
the Act of 1988 as it stands w.e.f. 01.04.2022.

69. In that view of the matter, this Court opines that the
impugned orders by which the learned Claims Tribunals in the
present cases have condoned the delay in respect to those claim
Page No.# 62/93

applications filed beyond the period of six months from the date
of occurrence of the accident or have entertained such claim
applications, are without authority and jurisdiction.

REMAINING PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XII OF THE ACT OF 1988

70. It is one thing that the Claims Tribunal does not have the
jurisdiction to entertain a claim application filed beyond six
months from the date of occurrence of the accident, but it is
another thing as to what steps are required to be taken by the
Claims Tribunal upon an accident occurring resulting in death or
bodily injury or damage to the third party rights within its
jurisdiction. This aspect is clear from a reading of Sections 149,
152, 159, 168, 169 of the Act of 1988 as well Rule 150A read
with Annexure XIII of the Rules of 1989 as already discussed
above. It is in that perspective relevant to take note of Section
166(4) of the Act of 1988.

71. Section 166(4) of the Act of 1988 empowers the Claims
Tribunal to treat any report of an accident forwarded to it under
Section 159 of the Act of 1988 as an application for
compensation under the Act of 1988. It is relevant to note that
Section 166 (4) of the Act of 1988 was inserted by the Motor
Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which came into effect on
14.11.1994. However, by the Amending Act, the said Sub-section
Page No.# 63/93

was also amended thereby substituting the “Sub-section (6) of
Section 158” with “Section 159”.

72. It is also apposite to observe that prior to the Amending Act
of 2019, though Section 166 (4) of the Act of 1988 empowered
the Claims Tribunal to treat a report submitted under Sub-Section
(6) of Section 158 of the Act of 1988 as a claim proceeding, but
in absence of the correlating provisions, the said Sub-Section (4)
of Section 166 of the Act of 1988 remained ineffectual. However,
with the Amending Act and the insertion of Rule 150A and
Annexure XIII to the Rules of 1989, Sub-Section (4) of Section
166 of the Act of 1988 have received impetus.

73. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Gohar
Mohammed (supra) and the directions issued for compliance have

immensely put into motion the quick resolution of the motor
vehicle accident claims in terms with Sections 149, 159 of the Act
of 1988 read with Rule 150A and Annexure XIII to the Rules of
1989.

74. The directions passed by the Supreme Court in the case of
Gohar Mohammed (supra) at paragraph No.78 and its sub-

paragraphs being relevant are quoted herein under:-

“78. Accordingly, this appeal is decided with the following directions:

78.1. The appeal filed by the owner challenging the issue of liability
Page No.# 64/93

is hereby dismissed confirming the order1 passed by the High Court
and MACT.

78.2. On receiving the intimation regarding road accident by use of
a motor vehicle at public place, the SHO concerned shall take steps
as per Section 159 of the MV Amendment Act.

78.3. After registering the FIR, the investigating officer shall take
recourse as specified in the MV Amendment Rules, 2022 and submit
the FAR within 48 hours to the Claims Tribunal. The IAR and DAR
shall be filed before the Claims Tribunal within the time-limit subject
to compliance with the provisions of the Rules.

78.4. The registering officer is duty-bound to verify the registration
of the vehicle, driving licence, fitness of vehicle, permit and other
ancillary issues and submit the report in coordination to the police
officer before the Claims Tribunal.

78.5. The flow chart and all other documents, as specified in the
Rules, shall either be in vernacular language or in English language,
as the case may be and shall be supplied as per Rules. The
investigating officer shall inform the victim(s)/legal
representative(s), driver(s), owner(s), insurance companies and
other stakeholders with respect to the action taken following the MV
Amendment Rules and shall take steps to produce the witnesses on
the date, so fixed by the Tribunal.

78.6. For the purpose to carry out the direction contained in para
78.3, distribution of police stations attaching them with the Claims
Tribunals is required. Therefore, distribution memo attaching the
Page No.# 65/93

police stations to the Claims Tribunals shall be issued by the
Registrars General of the High Courts from time to time, if not
already issued to ensure the compliance of the Rules.

78.7. In view of the MV Amendment Act and Rules, as discussed
hereinabove, the role of the investigating officer is very important.

He is required to comply with the provisions of the Rules within the
time-limit, as prescribed therein. Therefore, for effective
implementation of the MV Amendment Act and the Rules framed
thereunder, the specified trained police personnel are required to be
deputed to deal with the motor accident claim cases. Therefore, we
direct that the Chief Secretary/Director General of Police in each and
every State/Union Territory shall develop a specialised unit in every
police station or at town level and post the trained police personnel
to ensure the compliance of the provisions of the MV Amendment
Act and the Rules, within a period of three months from the date of
this order.

78.8. On receiving FAR from the police station, the Claims Tribunal
shall register such FAR as miscellaneous application. On filing the
IAR and DAR by the investigating officer in connection with the said
FAR, it shall be attached with the same miscellaneous application.
The Claims Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders in the said
application to carry out the purpose of Section 149 of the MV
Amendment Act and the Rules, as discussed above.

78.9. The Claims Tribunals are directed to satisfy themselves with
the offer of the designated officer of the insurance company with an
intent to award just and reasonable compensation. After recording
Page No.# 66/93

such satisfaction, the settlement be recorded under Section 149(2)
of the MV Amendment Act, subject to consent by the claimant(s). If
the claimant(s) is not ready to accept the same, the date be fixed
for hearing and affording an opportunity to produce the documents
and other evidence seeking enhancement, the petition be decided.
In the said event, the said enquiry shall be limited only to the extent
of the enhancement of compensation, shifting onus on the
claimant(s).

78.10. The General Insurance Council and all insurance companies
are directed to issue appropriate directions to follow the mandate of
Section 149 of the MV Amendment Act and the amended Rules. The
appointment of the Nodal Officer prescribed in Rule 24 and the
designated officer prescribed in Rule 23 shall be immediately
notified and modified orders be also notified time to time to all the
police stations/stakeholders.

78.11. If the claimant(s) files an application under Section 164 or
166 of the MV Amendment Act, on receiving the information, the
miscellaneous application registered under Section 149 shall be sent
to the Claims Tribunal where the application under Section 164 or
166 is pending immediately by the Claims Tribunal.

78.12. In case the claimant(s) or legal representative(s) of the
deceased have filed separate claim petition(s) in the territorial
jurisdiction of different High Courts, in the said situation, the first
claim petition filed by the claimant(s)/legal representative(s) shall be
maintained by the said Claims Tribunal and the subsequent claim
petition(s) shall stand transferred to the Claims Tribunal where the
Page No.# 67/93

first claim petition was filed and pending. It is made clear here that
the claimant(s) are not required to apply before this Court seeking
transfer of other claim petition(s) though filed in the territorial
jurisdiction of different High Courts. The Registrars General of the
High Courts shall take appropriate steps and pass appropriate order
in this regard in furtherance to the directions of this Court.

78.13. If the claimant(s) takes recourse under Section 164 or 166 of
the MV Amendment Act, as the case may be, he/they are directed to
join Nodal Officer/designated officer of the insurance company as
respondents in the claim petition as proper party of the place of
accident where the FIR has been registered by the police station.
Those officers may facilitate the Claims Tribunal specifying the
recourse as taken under Section 149 of the MV Amendment Act.

78.14. The Registrars General of the High Courts, States Legal
Services Authority and State Judicial Academies are requested to
sensitise all stakeholders as early as possible with respect to the
provisions of Chapters XI and XII of the MV Amendment Act and the
MV Amendment Rules, 2022 and to ensure the mandate of law.

78.15. For compliance of mandate of Rule 30 of the MV Amendment
Rules, 2022, it is directed that on disputing the liability by the
insurance company, the Claims Tribunal shall record the evidence
through Local Commissioner and the fee and expenses of such Local
Commissioner shall be borne by the insurance company.

78.16. The State Authorities shall take appropriate steps to develop
a joint web portal/platform to coordinate and facilitate the
Page No.# 68/93

stakeholders for the purpose to carry out the provisions of the MV
Amendment Act and the Rules in coordination with any technical
agency and be notified to the public at large.”

75. This Court further finds it relevant at this stage to take note
of that the Central Government had carried out necessary
amendments to the Rules of 1989, pursuant to the Amending Act
by inserting Rule 150A and Annexure XIII to the Rules of 1989.
However, the State of Assam is yet to carry out Amendments to
the Assam Rules of 2003 and more particularly to Chapter IX of
the said Rules so that the impetus provided by the Amending
Act, Rule 150A of the Rules of 1989 along with Annexure XIII
can be fully implementable. It is reiterated that only the State
Government is empowered to make Rules for giving effect to the
provisions of Sections 165 to 174 of the Act of 1988. This Court
hopes and expects that the State of Assam shall do the needful.

76. Be that as it may, an Executive instruction had been issued
on 01.12.2025 by the Home Department of the Government of
Assam thereby directing all Investigating Officers / Officer-in-
Charge of the Police Stations, Outposts and Supervising Officers
under the Assam Police to mandatorily prepare and submit the
reports in every motor accident case within the prescribed
timelines. Further to that, it is also mentioned that non-
submission or delayed submission of the FAR/IAR/DAR shall be
Page No.# 69/93

treated as non-compliance to statutory duties and may attract
disciplinary action under the Assam Disciplinary Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, and the other relevant laws
and Rules as applicable. The contents of the said notification
being relevant is reproduced herein under:-

GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
HOME DEPARTMENT
ND
BLOCK ‘I’, 2 FLOOR, ASSAM SECRETARIAT
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006
NOTIFICATION
ORDERS BY THE GOVERNOR OF ASSAM
Dated: As signed

No. 723899/32: In compliance with the order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the Hon’ble
Gauhati High Court in CRP (I/O) No. 111/2024 – Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.
Ltd vs. Girikanta Mahanta & Ors, and in pursuance of Clause 20 of Annexure XIII of
the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, as amended by the Central Motor Vehicles
(Filing of Amendment) Rules, 2022, read with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Gohar Mohammed vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors,
(2023), the Governor of Assam is pleased to issue the following instructions for strict
compliance in all motor vehicle accident cases across the State.

1. Mandatory Filing of Accident Reports

All Investigating Officers, Officers-in-Charge of Police Stations/Outposts, and
supervisory officers under Assam Police shall mandatorily prepare and submit the
following reports in every motor accident case, within the prescribed timelines:

        Report                     Description                 Timeline
  FAR - First         Initial accident information     Within 48 hours of
  Accident Report     report                           receipt of information
  IAR - Interim       Report to MACT pending final     Within 30 days of the
  Accident Report     DAR                              accident
  DAR - Detailed      Final comprehensive accident     Within 90 days of the
  Accident Report     report                           accident
                                                                         Page No.# 70/93

These timelines shall be adhered to strictly, except in exceptional circumstances
recorded in writing.

2. Statutory Responsibility under Clause 20

Clause 20 of Annexure XIII provides that duties of the police relating to accident
investigation shall be deemed to be included under the respective State Police Act, and
any breach shall entail legal consequences under that Act.

Non-submission or delayed submission of FAR/IAR/DAR shall be treated as non-
compliance of statutory duties and may attract disciplinary action under the Assam
Police Act, 2007, the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964, and other
relevant laws and rules as applicable.

3. Monitoring of Compliance
The CID, Assam (Nodal Authority) shall monitor compliance of FAR/IAR/DAR across
districts. All Senior Superintendents of Police / Commissioners of Police shall ensure
district-level compliance and furnish reports to CID in a timely manner.

This Notification shall come into force with immediate effect.

Sd/-

(Biswajit Pegu, IAS)
Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam,
Home and Political Department

77. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of Section 168
and Section 169 of the Act of 1988. Both the sections provide the
procedure to be followed by the Claims Tribunal. At the cost of
repetition, this Court finds it relevant to again reiterate that the
proceedings under Section 149(3)(b) of the Act of 1988 is to be
carried out in terms with Sections 168 and 169 of the Act of
1988 as mandated in Clause 29 of the Annexure XIII of the Rules
of 1989. The proceedings initiated under Section 159 of the Act
of 1988 converts itself to a proceedings under Section 166 of the
Page No.# 71/93

Act of 1988 by virtue of Section 166(4) of the Act of 1988 which
also is to be decided by the Claims Tribunal in terms with
Sections 168 and 169 of the Act of 1988.

78. CONCLUSION UPON THE ANALYSIS OF THE RELEVANT
PROVISIONS

(A) The Amending Act, Rule 150A of the Rules of 1989 and
Annexure XIII of the Rules of 1989 have resulted in notable
transformation of the process of resolution of the Motor Vehicle
Accident Claims.

(B) There are three modes by which claim proceedings can be
entertained by the Claims Tribunal:

(i) A proceedings in terms with Section 149 of the Act of
1988. In terms of Section 149(3)(a) of the Act of 1988, a
consent award can be passed. In terms with Section 149(3)

(b) of the Act of 1988, the question of enhancement of the
compensation offered by the Insurance Company as well as
the defence of the Insurance Company can be adjudicated
in terms with Section 168 and 169 of the Act of 1988.

(ii) A proceeding in terms with Section 159 and 166(4) of the
Act of 1988 read with Rule 150A and Annexure XIII of the
Rules of 1989:- Upon submission of the FAR, the Claims
Tribunal is required to register a Miscellaneous Case and
Page No.# 72/93

keep a tab upon the Investigating Officer as regards
submission of the IAR and DAR within the timelines. Upon
appearance of the claimants in pursuance to the DAR, the
Claims Tribunal would treat the DAR as a claim proceeding
irrespective of whether a claim proceeding has been filed or
not. However, in the circumstances, the claim proceedings
has already been filed in the same Claims Tribunal, the DAR
would become a part of the claim proceeding. In the case
the claim proceedings is filed in any other Claims Tribunal,
the DAR shall be transferred to the said Claims Tribunal
where the claim proceedings is pending.

(iii) A proceedings in terms with Section 166(1) of the Act of
1988:- In terms with Section 166 (1) of the Act of 1988 any
person enlisted in Clauses (a) to (d) of Section 166(1) of
the Act of 1988 can file a claim application.

(C) Section 146 of the Act of 1988 mandates the requirement
of insurance in respect to all motor vehicles except those
exempted. This provision is to be strictly complied with and the
Competent Authorities are also required to ensure strict
compliance by applying Section 196 of the Act of 1988 as well as
other provisions of law.

It is apposite to observe that strict compliance with Section
Page No.# 73/93

146 of the Act of 1988 would give an effectual resolution of the
motor vehicle accident claims in terms with Section 149 of the
Act of 1988.

(D) Section 149 of the Act of 1988 imposes a statutory obligation
and duty upon the Insurance Company. The said Section does
not provide any time limit to the claimant though it imposes time
limits for the Insurance Company to make an offer within 30
days. The said Section read with Clause 27 of Annexure-XIII
imposes an obligation upon the Claims Tribunal to pass a
consent award within six months from the date of the accident.
However, in the circumstances, a consent award cannot be
passed on account of the amount offered by the Insurance
Company is not fair or on account of a valid defence set up by
the Insurance Company, the said proceedings are required to be
disposed of in terms with Section 149(3)(b) read with Sections
168 and 169 of the Act of 1988 and Clauses 29 and 30 of
Annexure-XIII by the Claims Tribunal within 90 days from the
date of the accident by the Claims Tribunal. The
duties/obligations cast upon the Claims Tribunal also confers
jurisdiction upon the Claims Tribunal concerned to ensure that
the concerned Insurance Company is taking steps on the basis of
the statutory obligation cast upon it by Section 149 of the Act of
1988.

Page No.# 74/93

(E) Section 159 of the Act of 1988 imposes a statutory duty upon
the Police Officer/Investigating Officer to prepare an Accident
Information Report. What steps are required to be taken by the
Investigating Officer are clearly delineated in the various Clauses
of Annexure-XIII of the Act Rules of 1989. Apart from that, the
Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Gohar Mohammed
(supra) had also laid down the measures which an Investigating
Officer is required to take. It is very pertinent to note that a
conjoint reading of Sections 159 and 166(4) of the Act of 1988
read with Rule 150A and the various Clauses of Annexure-XIII of
the Rules of 1989 casts an obligation as well as duty upon the
Claims Tribunal to enforce the provisions of Section 159 of the
Act of 1988 read with the Clauses of Annexure-XIII of the Rules
of 1989.

(F) The Claims Tribunal is a creation of the Act of 1988. It is
empowered to do such acts which the Act of 1988, the Rules of
1989 as well as the Assam Rules of 2003 stipulate.

(G) The Claims Tribunal is a quasi-judicial body and not a full-
fledged Court. Under such circumstances, the provisions of the
Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be applied.

(H) The provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963
would not be applicable in respect to any application to be filed
Page No.# 75/93

before the Claims Tribunal. Consequently, Sections 4 to 24 (both
inclusive) cannot be applied by the Claims Tribunal. For the
purpose of the present dispute, it is made clear that the Claims
Tribunal cannot apply Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to
condone any delay in filing the claim application if not filed
within six months from the date of occurrence of the accident.

(I) The power to entertain by the Claims Tribunal being restricted
by Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988 only to claim application
filed within six months from the date of occurrence of an
accident, the Claims Tribunal cannot entertain a Claim
Application filed in terms with Section 166 (1) of the Act of 1988
if not filed within six months from the date of occurrence of the
accident.

(J) Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988 though limits the
jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal to entertain claim application
filed under Section 166(1) of the Act of 1988, if not filed within
six months of the occurrence of an accident, but by virtue of
Section 149 and Section 166(4) of the Act of 1988, the Claims
Tribunal continues to retain the jurisdiction over the motor
vehicle accident claims concerning a motor vehicle accident
which occurred within the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal.

(K) Sections 149, 159 and 166(4) of the Act of 1988 read with
Page No.# 76/93

Rule 150A and Annexure-XIII as already opined casts statutory
duties and obligations upon the Insurance Company,
Investigating Officer as well as the Claims Tribunal. The
Amending Act as well as the Rules of 1989 as amended up to
date provides quick resolution of motor vehicle accident claims
without the requirement of the claimants approaching the Claims
Tribunal under Section 166(1) of the Act of 1988.

It is also apposite to observe that upon a perusal of Section
149 read with Clauses 27 and 28 of Annexure-XIII, the resolution
of the motor vehicle accident claim is to be completed latest by
90 days from the date of the accident. Similarly when a
proceedings is initiated under Section 159 of the Act of 1988, the
Investigating Officer is required to submit the DAR, unless
extended by the Claims Tribunal in terms with Clause 17 of the
Annexure-XIII, within 90 days. Further, the DAR would be
registered as a claim proceeding by the Claims Tribunal upon
appearance of the claimant and proceed with as mandated by
Section 166(4) read with Sections 168 and 169 of the Act of
1988.

(L) The necessity of the claimant to file the Claim Application
after the period of six months of the occurrence of the accident
would only arise in circumstances when the Insurance Company
or the Investigating Officer or the Claims Tribunal do not perform
Page No.# 77/93

their duties/responsibilities as cast upon them by law. Under
such circumstances, as the Claims Tribunal retains jurisdiction
over all motor vehicle accidents occurred within its jurisdiction,
till the statutory obligations/duties cast upon the
Authorities/Insurance companies/Claims Tribunal are complied
with, the Claims Tribunal is required to treat the claim application
filed beyond the period of six months from the date of
occurrence of the accident as a complaint of the claimant for
non-performance of the duties reposed upon the Insurance
Company/Investigating Officer as well as the Claims Tribunal.

For the sake of clarity, it is mentioned that a claim application
filed beyond the period mentioned in Section 166(3) of the Act of
1988 cannot be treated as a claim application. It can only be
treated as an application bringing forth to the notice of the
Claims Tribunal that the Insurance Company/Investigating Officer
as well as the Claims Tribunal have failed to perform its statutory
duties reposed upon them by law.

(M) Upon filing of a claim application beyond the period
prescribed in Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988, the Claims
Tribunal shall treat the same as a Complaint and enquire upon
the Investigating Officer and/or the Insurance Company by
issuing Notice as to why the duties and obligations cast upon
them by law have been complied with.

Page No.# 78/93

(N) It is also observed that in the circumstance, the Claims
Tribunal arrives at a finding that the Insurance Company did not
receive information as provided in terms with the provisions of
Section 149 (1) of the Act of 1988, the Notice issued by the
Claims Tribunal upon the Insurance Company in terms with
Clause (M) hereinabove shall be construed as information to the
Insurance Company in terms with Section 149 (1) of the Act of
1988.

(O) Upon enquiry, if it is found that there is compliance by the
Investigating Officer and/or the Insurance Company, the claim
application which is treated as a complaint shall be closed
informing the claimant about the outcome.

(P) Upon enquiry, if it is found that the Investigating Officer
and/or the Insurance Company have failed to comply with the
obligations cast upon them by law, the Claims Tribunal shall
forthwith issue directions upon the Investigating Officer and/or
the Insurance Company seeking compliance.

It is further observed that in the circumstances, the
Investigating officer does not comply as directed, the Claims
Tribunal shall, in addition to other permissible directions, inform
the Disciplinary Authority of the Investigating Officer as regards
non compliance and request to take action against the
Page No.# 79/93

Investigating Officer in terms with the Notification dated
01.12.2025 as already quoted above.

It is further observed that in the circumstance the concerned
Insurance Company does not comply, the Claims Tribunal shall
report such incident to the Insurance Regulatory and
Development Authority of India for doing the needful.

(Q) Section 166(2) of the Act of 1988 provides options to the
claimant to file a claim Application in any of the Claims Tribunals,
i.e.

(i) Claims Tribunal within the jurisdiction where the accident
occurred.

(ii) Claims Tribunal within the jurisdiction where the
claimant resides or works for gain.

(iii) Claims Tribunal within the jurisdiction where the
Defendant resides.

However for the purpose of Sections 149 and 159 of the Act
of 1988, it shall be the Claims Tribunal within whose jurisdiction
the accident occurred in as much as it is only that Claims
Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the accident occurred retains
jurisdiction for the purpose of effecting compliance to Sections
149, 159 and 166(4) of the Act of 1988 read with Annexure-XIII
of the Rules of 1989.

Page No.# 80/93

Therefore, if a belated claim Application is filed before a
Claims Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the accident did not
occur, the said Claims Tribunal shall transfer the belated claim
Application to the Claims Tribunal within whose jurisdiction the
accident occurred for doing the needful in terms with the
aforesaid directions. The Claims Tribunal, upon receipt of the
belated claim Application, shall register the same as a
Miscellaneous Application and proceed as per the directions
passed hereinabove.

(R) This Court also directs that henceforth no claim Application
filed beyond the period of six months from the date of
occurrence of the accident be registered by the Claims Tribunal.
Such belated claim application be registered as a Miscellaneous
Application.

(S) Upon submission of the DAR by the Investigating Officer to
the Claims Tribunal before whom the belated Claim Application
was filed and/or transferred, the claim proceedings be registered
after the Claimant appears before the said Claims Tribunal and
proceeded with in terms with Sections 166(4), 168 and 169 of
the Act of 1988.

(T) It is observed that if the Claimant satisfies the Claims
Tribunal by way of an application that the Claimant has genuine
Page No.# 81/93

difficulties in participating before the Claims Tribunal where the
belated Claim Application was transferred, it shall be within the
jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal to consider such application
and transfer the claim proceedings to the Claims Tribunal
wherein the belated claim Application was filed at the first
instance. Upon transfer and receipt of the claim proceedings, the
Claims Tribunal shall decide the claim proceedings in terms with
Sections 166(4), 168 and 169 of the Act of 1988.

79. It is the opinion of this Court that in view of the conclusions
arrived at hereinabove, necessary directions are required to be
passed upon the learned Tribunals in the cases presently
adjudicated by this Court.

80. DIRECTIONS TO THE LEARNED TRIBUNALS

(A) CRP No.140/2023

(i) The Accident took place on 26.05.2022 and the claim
Application was filed on 04.06.2023, i.e. beyond the period
of six months from the date of the occurrence of the
accident.

(ii) The Claim Application being MAC Case No.151/2023 was
dismissed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Barpeta on 05.07.2023.

(iii) The order dated 05.07.2023 is set aside and quashed.

Page No.# 82/93

The Claim Application is restored to the file of the learned
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barpeta to be only
considered as a complaint. The claim Application be re-
registered as a Miscellaneous Application.

(iv) The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barpeta
shall do the needful in terms with the observations made in
paragraph No.78 of this judgment.

(B) CRP No.141/2023

(i) The Accident took place on 26.05.2022 and the claim
Application was filed on 04.06.2023, i.e. beyond the period
of six months from the date of the occurrence of the
accident.

(ii) The Claim Application being MAC Case No.150/2023 was
dismissed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Barpeta on 05.07.2023.

(iii) The order dated 05.07.2023 is set aside and quashed.
The Claim Application is restored to the file of the learned
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barpeta to be only
considered as a complaint. The claim Application be re-
registered as a Miscellaneous Application.

(iv) The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barpeta
shall do the needful in terms with the observations made in
Page No.# 83/93

paragraph No.78 of this judgment.

(i) The Accident took place on 26.11.2022 and the claim
Application was filed on 10.07.2023, i.e. beyond the period
of six months from the date of the occurrence of the
accident.

(ii) The Claim Application being MAC Case No.12/2023 was
dismissed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Golaghat on 05.07.2024.

(iii) The order dated 05.07.2024 is set aside and quashed.
The Claim Application is restored to the file of the learned
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Golaghat to be only
considered as a complaint. The claim Application be re-
registered as a Miscellaneous Application.

(iv) The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Golaghat
shall do the needful in terms with the observations made in
paragraph No.78 of this judgment.

(D) CRP No.32/2025

(i) The Accident took place on 17.04.2023 and the claim
Application was filed on 08.03.2024, i.e. beyond the period
of six months from the date of the occurrence of the
Page No.# 84/93

accident.

(ii) The Claim Application being MAC Case No.06/2024 was
dismissed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Golaghat on 06.12.2024.

(iii) The order dated 06.12.2024 is set aside and quashed.
The Claim Application is restored to the file of the learned
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Golaghat to be only
considered as a complaint. The claim Application be re-
registered as a Miscellaneous Application.

(iv) The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Golaghat
shall do the needful in terms with the observations made in
paragraph No.78 of this judgment.

(E) CRP No.44/2025

(i) The Accident took place on 12.04.2022 and the claim
Application was filed on 04.03.2023, i.e. beyond the period
of six months from the date of the occurrence of the
accident.

(ii) The Claim Application being MAC Case No.348/2023 was
dismissed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
No.3, Kamrup (M). Guwahati on 30.01.2025.

(iii) The order dated 30.01.2025 is set aside and quashed.

Page No.# 85/93

The Claim Application is restored to the file of the learned
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No.3, Kamrup (M).
Guwahati to be only considered as a complaint. The claim
Application be re-registered as a Miscellaneous Application.

(iv) The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No.3,
Kamrup (M), Guwahati shall do the needful in terms with
the observations made in paragraph No.78 of this
judgment.

(F) CRP(IO) No.111/2024

(i)The Accident occurred on 14.06.2022 and the claim
Application was filed on 27.12.2022 which was registered as
MAC Case No.118/2022.

(ii) By the impugned order dated 18.01.2023, the delay of
16 days was condoned by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Sonitpur at Tezpur.

(iii) The impugned order dated 18.01.2023 is contrary to
Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988 and as such set aside and
quashed.

(iv) The claim Application be kept on record and be re-
registered as a Miscellaneous Application and the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonitpur at Tezpur shall do
the needful as per the observations made in paragraph
Page No.# 86/93

No.78 of this judgment.

(G) CRP(IO) No.386/2023

(i)The Accident occurred on 18.05.2022 and the claim
Application was filed on 07.12.2022 which was registered as
MAC Case No.560/2022.

(ii) By the impugned order dated 14.09.2023, the delay of
20 days was condoned by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Cachar at Silchar.

(iii) The impugned order dated 14.09.2023 is contrary to
Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988 and as such set aside and
quashed.

(iv) The claim Application be kept on record and be re-
registered as a Miscellaneous Application and the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cachar at Silchar shall do
the needful as per the observations made in paragraph
No.78 of this judgment.

(H) CRP(IO) No.257/2024

(i)The Accident occurred on 27.12.2022 and the claim
Application was filed on 03.07.2023 which was registered as
Misc.(J) MAC Case No.04/2023.

(ii) By the impugned order dated 07.07.2023, the delay of 8
Page No.# 87/93

days was condoned by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Kokrajhar.

(iii) The impugned order dated 07.07.2023 is contrary to
Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988 and as such set aside and
quashed.

(iv) The claim Application be kept on record and be re-
registered as a Miscellaneous Application and the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kokrajhar shall do the
needful as per the observations made in paragraph No.78 of
this judgment.

(I) CRP(IO) No.392/2024

(i) The Accident occurred on 15.07.2022 and the claim
Application was filed on 19.01.2023 which was registered as
MAC Case No.25/2023.

(ii) By the impugned order dated 19.01.2023, the delay of 4
days was condoned by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Goalpara.

(iii) The impugned order dated 19.01.2023 is contrary to
Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988 and as such set aside and
quashed.

(iv) The claim Application be kept on record and be re-

Page No.# 88/93

registered as a Miscellaneous Application and the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara shall do the
needful as per the observations made in paragraph No.78 of
this judgment.

(J) CRP(IO) No.121/2025

(i) The Accident occurred on 12.05.2023 and the claim
Application was filed on 30.11.2023 which was registered as
Misc. Case No.78/2023.

(ii) By the impugned order dated 03.07.2024, the delay of
18 days was condoned by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Nagaon.

(iii) The impugned order dated 03.07.2024 is contrary to
Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988 and as such set aside and
quashed.

(iv) The claim Application be kept on record and be re-
registered as a Miscellaneous Application and the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon shall do the needful
as per the observations made in paragraph No.78 of this
judgment.

(K) CRP(IO) No.134/2025

(i) The Accident occurred on 10.03.2023 and the claim
Page No.# 89/93

Application was filed on 30.08.2024 which was registered as
Misc. Case No.16/2024 (D).

(ii) By the impugned order dated 20.02.2025, the delay of
301 days was condoned by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Nalbari.

(iii) The impugned order dated 20.02.2025 is contrary to
Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988 and as such set aside and
quashed.

(iv) The claim Application be kept on record and be re-
registered as a Miscellaneous Application and the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalbari shall do the needful
as per the observations made in paragraph No.78 of this
judgment.

(L) CRP(IO) No.187/2025

(i) The Accident occurred on 12.09.2022 and the claim
Application was filed on 29.05.2023 which was registered as
Misc. Case No.34/2023.

(ii) By the impugned order dated 14.05.2024, the delay of
47 days was condoned by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Nagaon.

(iii) The impugned order dated 14.05.2024 is contrary to
Page No.# 90/93

Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988 and as such set aside and
quashed.

(M) CRP(IO) No.258/2025

(i) The Accident occurred on 05.08.2022 and the claim
Application was filed on 16.08.2023 which was registered as
Misc. Case No.64/2023.

(ii) By the impugned order dated 19.03.2025, the delay of
191 days was condoned by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Nagaon.

(iii) The impugned order dated 19.03.2025 is contrary to
Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988 and as such set aside and
quashed.

Page No.# 91/93

(N) CRP(IO) No.332/2025

(i) The Accident occurred on 05.09.2022 and the claim
Application was filed on 17.03.2023 which was registered as
Misc. Case No.26/2024.

(ii) By the impugned order dated 29.11.2024, the delay of
11 days was condoned by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Nagaon.

(iii) The impugned order dated 29.11.2024 is contrary to
Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988 and as such set aside and
quashed.

(O) CRP(IO) No.339/2025

(i) The Accident occurred on 16.04.2022 and the claim
Application was filed on 30.11.2022 which was registered as
Misc. (J) Case No.09/2022.

(ii) By the impugned order dated 23.04.2025, the delay of
44 days was condoned by the learned Motor Accident
Page No.# 92/93

Claims Tribunal, Morigaon.

(iii) The impugned order dated 23.04.2025 is contrary to
Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988 and as such set aside and
quashed.

(iv) The claim Application be kept on record and be re-
registered as a Miscellaneous Application and the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon shall do the
needful as per the observations made in paragraph No.78 of
this judgment.

ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS AND DIRECTIONS

81. This Court would remind the State Government that by
virtue of Section 176 of the Act of 1988, power is only conferred
upon the State Government to make Rules for the purpose of
carrying into effect the provisions of Section 165 to 174 of the
Act of 1988 and in particular such Rules shall provide the
procedure to be followed by the Claims Tribunal in holding an
enquiry under the Chapter. The Assam Rules of 2003 are
required to be revisited in view of the Amending Act as well as
Annexure XIII of the Rules of 1989, more so when the Assam
Rules of 2003 were framed at a time when Section 166(3) of the
Act of 1988 was not there.

This Court hopes and expects that the State of Assam shall
Page No.# 93/93

do the needful.

82. This Court further directs that till the Assam Rules of 2003
are revisited upon, the procedure delineated at paragraph No.78
herein above, shall be followed by the Claims Tribunal under the
supervisory jurisdiction of the Gauhati High Court.

83. The Registry is directed to circulate a copy of the instant
judgment to the all the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals within
the jurisdiction of this Court, for due compliance.

84. All applications stands accordingly disposed. No costs.

JUDGE

Pradip Kumar Kalita Digitally signed by Pradip Kumar Kalita
Date: 2026.02.19 10:10:56 +05’30’

Comparing Assistant

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Become a member

2023 B.A.LL.B.(Hons.)_V_ Semester_End Term_Revised_Result

Milbank Partner Gurbir S. Grewal Co-Chairs ACI’s 2025 Annual Conference on FCPA and Global Anti-Corruption

Delhi High Court Issues Notice to ED for Manoj Gaur’s Bail in Jaypee Infratech Money Laundering Case, ETLegalWorld

INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ELF PARTNERS

2023 B.A.LL.B.(Hons.)_V_ Semester_End Term_Revised_Result

Milbank Partner Gurbir S. Grewal Co-Chairs ACI’s 2025 Annual Conference on FCPA and Global Anti-Corruption

Delhi High Court Issues Notice to ED for Manoj Gaur’s Bail in Jaypee Infratech Money Laundering Case, ETLegalWorld

INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ELF PARTNERS

Page No.# 1/93 vs Girikanta Mahanta And 5 Ors on 18 February, 2026

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/93 vs Girikanta Mahanta And 5 Ors on 18 February, 2026

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

Subscribe for exclusive content

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Subscribe to Liberty Case

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Become a member

Page No.# 1/93 vs Girikanta Mahanta And 5 Ors on 18 February, 2026

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/93 vs Girikanta Mahanta And 5 Ors on 18 February, 2026

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

Subscribe for exclusive content