Stale motor accident claims filed after inordinate, unexplained delay are not maintainable despite the absence of statutory limitation.

On October 27, 1992, a Maruti Van carrying six passengers collided head-on with a bus (JK-02-B 6826) near Jammu, resulting in three deaths, including Shri Brij Kishore Singhal

Although the accident occurred in 1992, the legal representatives (LRs) of the deceased filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act only on May 30, 2005—a delay of over 12 years

The appellants attributed the delay to the widow being in shock and raising two children

Procedurally, the petition was dismissed for default three times (in 2006 and 2009) before being finally restored in 2011

On January 29, 2018, the MACT dismissed the petition, ruling it was not filed within a reasonable time and that negligence by the bus driver was not proven

The appellants challenged this dismissal in the High Court.

1. Whether a claim petition filed after a delay of 12 years, following the deletion of the statutory limitation period by the 1994 Amendment, is maintainable as a "reasonable" exercise of legal rights

2. Whether the appellants successfully established negligence on the part of the respondent driver to warrant compensation

The Court applied Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, noting that while the 1994 Amendment deleted the six-month limitation period to make the Act a beneficial piece of legislation

such claims must still be filed within a "reasonable time"

It relied on *New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma (2003)*, which held that the 1994 amendment could apply to prior accidents if the claim was genuine

but qualified this with *Purohit & Co. v. Khatoonbee (2017)*, which established that "stale" or "dead" claims filed after inordinate, unexplained delays should not be entertained

Furthermore, regarding negligence, it applied the principle from *National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana (2007)* regarding the evidentiary value of FIRs and chargesheets in summary proceedings

The Court reasoned that while the MV Act is beneficial legislation, it does not provide a perpetual license to file claims at any juncture.

In the present case, the 12-year delay in filing was compounded by a complete lack of diligence thereafter, evidenced by the petition being dismissed for default three times before the Tribunal and once before the High Court

Applying the "reasonableness" test from *Purohit & Co.*, the Court found the appellant's conduct amounted to lethargy rather than a genuine inability to seek remedy, rendering the claim "stale"

On merits, the Court found the testimony of the eyewitness (PW-5) to be "sketchy, sparse and extremely vague"

The witness could not recollect the vehicle numbers and admitted the accident occurred in the center of a straight, empty road, failing to establish the bus driver's specific negligence

Additionally, the lack of police records, chargesheets, or medical documents before the MACT created significant evidentiary gaps

The Court held that a delay of 12 years in filing, coupled with a persistent failure to prosecute the matter diligently, made the claim "stale" and "dead"

Furthermore, the Court held that the appellants failed to prove negligence on the part of the respondent driver even on a preponderance of probabilities

All pending applications were rendered infructuous