Injured Motorcyclist’s 147-Day Delay Condoned After Treatment, Fever And Jaundice As Karnataka HC Applies Amended Section 166(3) MV Act To Pending Claim

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Tribunal’s rejection of the delay-condonation application and consequent dismissal of the claim petition as time-barred warranted interference.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Tribunal’s order, condoned the 147-day delay and restored MVC No. 820/2023 for adjudication on its merits.

It also directed

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 5 November 2026.

01Facts

The petitioner sustained injuries in a motorcycle accident on 1 August 2022 and filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) on 5 June 2023, together with an application to condone a 147-day delay beyond the prescribed six-month period.

¶ 2–3

The Tribunal rejected the application and dismissed the claim petition as time-barred.

¶ 4, 10

The petitioner challenged that order in a writ petition, which remained pending when a proviso allowing claims to be entertained within a further period of up to twelve months for sufficient cause came into force on 15 August 2026.

¶ 6, 13, 18

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Tribunal’s rejection of the delay-condonation application and consequent dismissal of the claim petition as time-barred warranted interference.

¶ 8

ii.2. Whether the petitioner could benefit from the intervening amendment to Section 166(3) of the MV Act while the challenge to the limitation order remained pending.

¶ 13, 16–19

03Law Applied

Section 166(3) of the MV Act, as amended by the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026, permits a Claims Tribunal to entertain an application filed after the initial six-month period but within a further period not exceeding twelve months if satisfied that sufficient cause prevented timely filing.

¶ 13

In Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya, (1996) 4 SCC 652, the Supreme Court held that the benefit of a subsequent amendment to the limitation law may extend to proceedings in which the limitation issue remains pending, but not where an adverse judicial order has attained finality.

¶ 15–16

The MV Act is beneficial legislation, though its statutory requirements must still be observed.

¶ 11–12

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 Section 158

04Reasoning

The claim was filed within the extended period contemplated by the new proviso, and the limitation dispute had not attained finality because the Tribunal’s order was under challenge when the amendment took effect.

¶ 18, 20

Applying Dhannalal, the Court held that the petitioner could receive the benefit of the intervening amendment.

¶ 16–19

The petitioner’s evidence—including the wound certificate, discharge summary and police records—supported his explanation that treatment for accident injuries, followed by fever and jaundice, prevented timely filing; the Court found sufficient cause established.

¶ 9, 21

05Holding

The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Tribunal’s order, condoned the 147-day delay and restored MVC No. 820/2023 for adjudication on its merits.

¶ 23

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 5 November 2026.

¶ 23

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF