In a significant interim relief for road accident victims, the Supreme Court of India has directed Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACTs) and High Courts across the country not to dismiss any motor accident compensation petitions on the ground of limitation until the constitutional validity of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is fully adjudicated.
This interim protection comes while the Court is hearing a batch of matters challenging the 2019 amendment, which introduced a six-month limitation period to file a motor accident claim petition.
What Is Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act?
Section 166 of the MV Act deals with the filing of compensation claims for motor accident injuries or deaths. The disputed provision states:
“No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident.”
This six-month limitation was reintroduced by the 2019 amendment (effective from 1 April 2022), reviving the earlier time-bar regime that had been removed in 1994 to make the law victim-friendly.
Supreme Court’s Interim Directions
The Bench observed that the outcome of the present case would impact multiple similar petitions pending across various courts. Therefore, until the matter is finally heard:
No Motor Accident Claim Petitions Shall Be Dismissed as Time-Barred Under Section 166(3).
The Court further directed:
- Parties must complete their pleadings within two weeks
- Failure to do so will result in loss of right to file pleadings
- The matter will next be heard on November 25, 2025
This order ensures that deserving victims do not lose compensation due to procedural technicalities.
Why The Amendment Is Being Challenged
The petitioner, a practicing advocate and accident victim rights activist, argued that reintroducing a rigid time limit defeats the object of the MV Act, which is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing financial relief to victims and their families.
Key Grounds of Challenge
| Ground | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 | Imposing a strict deadline restricts access to justice and is arbitrary. |
| Contrary to Object of MV Act | The law is intended to be beneficial, not restrictive. |
| No Justification or Public Consultation | The amendment was introduced without stakeholder consultation or Law Commission consideration. |
| Victims Often Unable to File Claims Immediately | Many victims are hospitalized, recovering, or unaware of their legal rights. |
The petition stresses that victims, particularly from rural, economically weaker, or illiterate backgrounds, may not be able to file claims within six months.
Historical Context: Time Limit Was Removed in 1994
Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, accident claims had to be filed within six months. This provision was carried forward in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but was removed by the Amendment Act of 1994 to:
- Reduce hardship
- Promote victim welfare
- Allow delayed claims to be heard on merits
The 2019 amendment revived the old limitation, which the petitioner argues is a regressive step.
Why Time Limits Can Harm Victims
The Court acknowledged several practical barriers that victims face after accidents:
- Hospitalization and medical recovery
- Lack of legal awareness
- Delay in obtaining police documents such as FIR and accident report
- Financial and emotional distress in the aftermath of death or severe injury
- Limited legal infrastructure in rural areas
Imposing a strict deadline risks denying compensation to genuine victims, while benefiting insurers who rely on procedural defenses.
Interim Order Protects Victims Nationwide
Until the Court settles the issue, no Tribunal or High Court can reject claims solely on limitation grounds.
This intervention ensures:
- Access to justice is preserved
- Victims are not deprived of compensation
- Claims continue to be processed without procedural hurdles
This is particularly important because motor accident compensation is often the only financial support for families after sudden loss or disability.
Next Steps in the Case
- The Court will hear the matter next on November 25, 2025
- Final judgment will determine:
- Whether Section 166(3) should be struck down as unconstitutional
- Or whether the limitation period may continue with exceptions or safeguards
Given the humanitarian nature of motor accident compensation law, the constitutional analysis is likely to balance victims’ rights against administrative rationality.
Significance of the Order
This interim order provides immediate relief to thousands of pending and future claimants. It reinforces the judiciary’s consistent position that:
Procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive justice.
It also aligns with earlier rulings where the Supreme Court emphasized a liberal and compassionate interpretation of social welfare legislation.
