The Supreme Court has issued a crucial interim directive ensuring that no motor accident claim should be dismissed as time-barred under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The order comes amid multiple petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the six-month limitation period introduced by the 2019 amendment, effective from April 1, 2022.

A Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria passed this interim order while hearing W.P.(C) No. 166/2024- Bhagirathi Dash v. Union of India & Anr.

The Court noted that similar petitions are pending nationwide and clarified that the outcome of this case would have a direct bearing on all connected matters.

Court’s Interim Directions

Recording its observations, the Bench stated that since the issue carries widespread implications, all pending matters must be expedited. The order explicitly mandates that until the petitions are finally decided, no Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) or High Court shall dismiss any compensation petition as barred by limitation under Section 166(3) of the MV Act.

“During the pendency of these petitions, the tribunal or the High Courts shall not dismiss the claim petitions on the ground of limitation as prescribed under sub-Section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,”

the Bench directed.

The Supreme Court has also granted two weeks’ time to all parties to complete their pleadings, warning that any delay beyond this period will forfeit their right to file.

Background Of The Challenge

The petitioner, a practising advocate, has challenged the 2019 amendment as arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.

The challenge is rooted in the contention that the amendment undermines the beneficial intent of the Motor Vehicles Act by imposing an unrealistically short limitation period of six months to file a claim for compensation.

Earlier, the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988, after the 1994 amendment, had removed any limitation period, allowing victims to seek compensation at any time.

However, with the reintroduction of Section 166(3) through the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, effective from April 1, 2022, the six-month cap was reinstated, which the petitioner argues curtails victims’ rights.

Constitutional & Legislative Concerns

The petition alleges that the amendment lacks transparency, as it was introduced without stakeholder consultation, Law Commission input, or Parliamentary debate. It further asserts that the provision is devoid of any reasonable legislative basis or public policy rationale.

Quoting the petition:

“The amendment is arbitrary, ultra vires, and violative of fundamental rights, as it fails to uphold the spirit of a welfare legislation aimed at protecting accident victims.”

Next Hearing

The Supreme Court has listed the matter for further hearing on November 25, 2025, and directed that all pleadings be completed before that date.

The outcome of this case is expected to have nationwide repercussions for accident compensation claims filed after the 2019 amendment.

Case Details

• Case Title: Bhagirathi Dash v. Union of India & Anr.
• Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 166/2024
• Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria
• Petitioner Counsel: Sr. Adv. Jay Savla, assisted by Renuka Sahu, AOR
• Next Hearing Date: November 25, 2025

Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…