Gauhati High Court
Nami Begum vs Nabajyoti Das And 2 Ors on 23 April, 2026
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010007552025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP/21/2025
NAMI BEGUM
W/O- MD. ELIOUS HUSSAIN HAZARIKA, R/O- WARD NO. 8, N.T. ROAD, P.O.
AND P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, PIN- 787001, ASSAM
VERSUS
NABAJYOTI DAS AND 2 ORS.
(OWNER), S/O- BHUDHAR DAS, R/O- WARD NO. 3, NORTH LAKHIMPUR
TOWN, P.O. AND P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-
787001.
2:HEEM MALAY DAS
(DRIVER)
S/O- NABAJYOTI DAS
R/O- WARD NO. 3
NORTH LAKHIMPUR TOWN
P.O. AND P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR
DIST. LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 787001.
3:SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
JORHAT BRANCH
ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER (INSURER)
3RD FLOOR
CRYSTAL SR PLAZA
OPP. BANK OF BARODA
GAR ALI
JORHAT-785001
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B ACHARYYA, MS. M ACHARYYA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R GOSWAMI, R M BAROOAH(R-1,2),MR A CHALIHA (R-
1,2),MR. B GOGOI(R-1,2),MR M BHUYAN(R-1,2),MS. P BORTHAKUR,MS. M SAIKIA
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
23.04.2026
Heard Ms. M. Acharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. M. Bhuyan,
learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2; and Mr. R. Goswami, learned
counsel for the respondent No. 3.
2. This petition, under Section 115 of the CPC read with Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, is preferred by the petitioner for setting aside/quashing the
order dated 30.11.2024, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Lakhimpur, North
Lakhimpur (Tribunal hereinafter), in Misc. Case No. 09/2023, under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act.
3. Notably, vide impugned order dated 30.11.2024, the learned Tribunal has
rejected the petition, filed by the petitioner herein for condoning the delay of 474,
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in filing the claim petition for compensation,
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act hereinafter).
4. Ms. Acharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
herein met with an accident on 22.08.2021, while she was travelling in a Maruti
Suzuki Baleno, bearing registration No. AS-07-Q-7199, which was insured with SBI
General Insurance Company Limited and the said insurance policy was valid from
14.01.2020, up-to 13.01.2023.
4.1. Ms. Acharyya further submits that there was delay in filing the claim petition,
for which, she has filed an application for condoning the delay of 474 days along
with the claim petition. Upon the said application, the learned Tribunal has
Page No.# 3/5
registered a case, being Misc. Case No. 09/2023 and issued notice to the opposite
party Nos. 1, 2 & 3. Then, the opposite parties have entered appearance and filed
their written objection and thereafter, vide impugned order dated 30.11.2024, the
learned Tribunal has dismissed the application.
4.2. Ms. Acharyya also submits that the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for
delay in filing the claim petition and that Section 166(3) of the MV Act came into
force with effect from 01.04.2022 and as such, the period of limitation of 6 months
cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner.
4.3. Ms. Acharyya further submits that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in MAC
Appeal No. 30/2021, vide order dated 12.12.2024, clearly held to that effect and as
such, the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary and therefore, it is contended to
interfere with the same.
5. Per-contra, Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, fairly
submits that the accident took place prior to coming into force of the amended Act
and as such, the period of limitation of 6 months is not applicable in the present
case.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 &
2, submits that he has no objection in the event of allowing this petition.
7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this
Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on
record and also perused the impugned order dated 30.11.2024.
8. It appears that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, in MAC Appeal No.
30/2021, has held that the amendment of Sub-Section 3 to Section 166 of the MV
Act came into force with effect from 01.04.2022. It also appears that in the said
case the notification dated 25.02.2022, issued by the Ministry of Road Transport
and Highways, was referred, which is read as under:-
Page No.# 4/5
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 25th February, 2022
S.O. 895(E).-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-
section (2) of section 1 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment)
Act, 2019 (32 of 2019), the central Government hereby appoints
the 1st day of April, 2022 as the date on which the following
provisions of the said Act shall come into force, namely:-
Sl. No. Sections 1. Section 50; 2. Section 51; 3. Section 52; 4. Section 53; 5. Section 54; 6. Section 55; 7. Section 56; 8. Section 57; and 9. Section 93.
8.1. It is to be noted here that in the said case, the accident took place on
03.05.2019, prior to the enforcement of the amended act and therefore, it was
held that Section 166(3) of the MV Act is not applicable in that case and thereafter,
directed the learned Tribunal to proceed with the claim petition in accordance with
law.
9. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the accident took place on
22.08.2021 and from the Notification dated 25.02.2022, it appears that amended
provision of Sub-Section 3 to Section 166 of the MV Act came into force with effect
from 01.04.2022 and no retrospective effect is given to the said provision.
Page No.# 5/5
10. In that view of the matter, the bar, imposed by Sub-Section 3 to Section 166
of the amended MV Act, would not be applicable in the present case.
11. Accordingly, taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the
parties and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, this Court
is of the view that the finding of the learned Tribunal, in paragraph No. 16 of the
impugned order dated 30.11.2024, is illegal and arbitrary and on such count, the
same requires interference of this Court.
12. In the result, this CRP stands allowed. The impugned order dated 30.11.2024,
stands set aside and quashed.
13. The learned Tribunal is directed to proceed with the claim petition in
accordance with law.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant