In a significant, pan-India order that brings immediate relief to countless road accident victims, the Supreme Court of India has directed that no motor accident compensation claim should be dismissed by any Tribunal or High Court on the ground of delay.

This interim order effectively presses pause on the controversial six-month limitation period prescribed under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Court, which is currently examining the constitutional validity of this very provision, has taken this step to protect victims from having their claims permanently defeated while the matter is sub-judice.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria passed the protective order while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the 2019 amendment that reintroduced the strict time limit.

What is the Supreme Court's Directive?

Recognizing the widespread impact of the issue, the Supreme Court has expedited the hearing. The bench noted that numerous similar petitions are pending across the country and that any finding by the apex court would have a direct bearing on all of them.

To prevent irreversible injustice and maintain legal consistency, the Court issued a clear interim directive. The order, as recorded, states:

"It is made clear that during the pendency of these petitions, the tribunal or the High Courts shall not dismiss the claim petitions on the ground of such petitions as barred by limitation as prescribed under sub-Section (3) or Section 16(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988."

The Court has given the parties two weeks to complete all pleadings, signaling its intent to resolve this critical issue quickly, and has re-listed the matter for November 25.

The Core of the Controversy: Section 166(3)

The entire legal battle centers on Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. This provision, which was inserted via the 2019 amendment and came into effect on April 1, 2022, reads:

"(3) No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident."

This small clause created a massive hurdle for victims. An accident victim or their family—often dealing with severe physical trauma, hospitalization, emotional grief, and financial distress—now had a ticking clock of just 180 days to navigate the legal system and file a claim. If they missed this deadline, their right to compensation was, in theory, lost forever.

A Legislative Pendulum: Why the 1994 Amendment is Key

The challenge to the 2019 amendment becomes clearer when looking at its legislative history. This isn't the first time a time limit has been in the law, but its removal and subsequent re-introduction is the central point of the "arbitrary" argument.

The 1988 Act: The original 1988 Act did contain a provision for a six-month limitation.

The 1994 Amendment: In a significant, welfare-oriented move, Parliament amended the Act in 1994 and completely removed the time limit. The legislature recognized that the Motor Vehicles Act is a "benevolent statute"—a piece of social welfare law. Its primary object is to provide "just compensation" to victims, not to defeat their claims on technical grounds like delay. The 1994 amendment affirmed that a victim's trauma, poverty, or lack of legal awareness should not extinguish their right to justice.

The 2019 Amendment: Decades later, the 2019 amendment (effective 2022) turned the clock back, re-inserting the six-month limit. The petitioners argue this was done without any rational basis, public debate, or stakeholder consultation, effectively undoing a conscious, benevolent decision made in 1994.

The Constitutional Challenge: 'Arbitrary and Irrational'

The petition, filed by a practicing advocate and argued by Senior Advocate Jay Savla, attacks the provision as being fundamentally unconstitutional.

Violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality): The petition argues the provision is "arbitrary, unreasoned, and irrational." It creates a "one size fits all" rule that is manifestly unjust. It fails to distinguish between a victim with minor injuries and one who is in a coma for seven months. It offers no judicial discretion—unlike the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows courts to "condone delay" if "sufficient cause" is shown. This rigid bar, the petition claims, is arbitrary and thus violates the right to equality.

Violation of Article 21 (Right to Life): The right to "just compensation" is intricately linked to the right to life, which includes the right to dignity, health, and recovery. By imposing an arbitrary procedural bar, the law curtails a victim's ability to fund their recovery and rebuild their life, thereby infringing upon Article 21.

Defeats the Object of the Act: The petition forcefully argues that the amendment undermines the very purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act. The law is meant to help victims. This provision, however, acts as a trap that denies them help.

Lack of Legislative Deliberation: A key argument is that this amendment was pushed through without any supporting data, Law Commission report, or parliamentary debate on why the 1994 position was being reversed.

What This Means for Accident Victims

This interim order is a monumental victory for road accident victims and their families.

Immediate Protection: Anyone who has filed a claim after the six-month period can now breathe easier. Their case cannot be thrown out on the ground of delay.

New Filings: Victims who are approaching or have just crossed the six-month mark can file their claims without the fear of an immediate dismissal.

A Clear Message: The Supreme Court has signaled that it is prioritizing the rights of the victims and the benevolent nature of the Act over rigid procedural technicalities.

While this is an interim order, it provides a crucial shield for claimants across India. The final judgment on November 25 will be eagerly awaited, as it will settle a legal conflict that stands at the intersection of procedural law and the fundamental right to justice.