# Shambhu Nath Shukla & Anr v. Raghubir Singh & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 105
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-11-26
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1538 of 2014
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shambhu-nath-shukla-anr-v-raghubir-singh-anr-45439
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -
Section 140 and 166 - Civil Procedure Code -
Section 2(11) - Legal Representative -
Meaning - Entitlement of father in absence of
mother to receive compensation - The term
'Legal Representative' has been considered
to be inclusive and the courts have given it a
wider scope of applicability - It would
include legal heir - The person who can
represent the estate of the deceased would
be included in the term legal representative -
The term therefore includes earning wife and
parents and all legal heirs - Held, in the
situation when mother died, the father
become legal representative and is entitled
to get compensation. (Para 6 and 13)
B. Motor Accident Claim - Computation of
Compensation
-
Future
Prospects
-
Application of Multiplier - Non pecuniary
Damages - The multiplier of 16 granted by the
tribunal was revisited in view of the decision
in Sarla Verma and the multiplier of 18 was
applied - Held, the appellant is entitled to an
addition of 40% of the income of the
deceased
towards
future
prospects
-
Compensation re-computed. (Para 17)
Appeal partly allowed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

12 All. Shambhu Nath Shukla & Anr. Vs. Raghubir Singh & Anr.
105
widow, who was 40 years of age, and
accident took place on 2003, 10% has to be
added. Therefore, Rs.5000/- is to be added
to the amount under non pecuniary loss as
per decision in Pranay Sethi (supra). The
interest as per Judgment of Apex Court in
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mannat
Johal and Others, 2019 (2) T.A.C. 705
(S.C.) would be 7.5 per cent but Insurance
Company shall not deduct any amount
under the TDS as the cannot be deducted as
per the Judgment of this Court in F.A.F.O.
No.23 of 2001, Smt. Sudesna and others
vs. Hari Singh and another, dated
26.11.2020. Relevant part of the said
Judgment is as under:-

" It is further orally conveyed that
even if the amounts will be deposited, the
Insurance company normally deducts TDS.
The judgement is reviewed and at the end.

"I. On depositing the amount in
the Registry of the Tribunal, Registry is
directed to first deduct the amount of deficit
court fees, if any.

II. Considering the ratio laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of A.V. Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in
2012 (1) GLH (SC), 442, the order of
investment
is
not
passed
because
applicants/claimants
are
neither
not
illiterate and in New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. Vs. Hussain Babulal Shaikh and
others, 2017 (1) TAC 400 (Bom.).

III. View of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansaguti P. Ladhani v/s The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., reported in
2007(2) GLH 291, total amount of interest,
accrued on the principal amount of
compensation is to be apportioned on
financial year to financial year basis and if
the interest payable to claimant for any
financial
year
exceeds
Rs.50,000/-,
insurance company/owner is/are entitled to
deduct appropriate amount under the head
of 'Tax Deducted at Source' as provided u/s
194A (3) (ix) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
and if the amount of interest does not
exceeds Rs.50,000/- in any financial year,
registry of this Tribunal is directed to allow
the claimant to withdraw the amount (as
directed in para No. II) without producing
the certificate from the concerned IncomeTax Authority.""

7. The amount shall be deposited on
or before 31.1.2021.

8. It goes without saying that if the
amount is deposited and TDS is deducted,
the Insurance company shall see to it that in
future this mistake is not committed and
will help the appellant in recovering the
said
amount
from
the
income-tax
department.

9. The appeal is partly allowed.

10. This Court is thankful to Sri
Arvind Kumar for ably assisting the court
so that Insurance Company may not have to
pay more interest.
----------
(2020)12ILR A105
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1538 of 2014

Shambhu Nath Shukla & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Raghubir Singh & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Ram Singh, Sri Amit Kumar Sinha
106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Abhinav Krishna, Sri Abhindra Krishna,
Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, Sri R.N. Singh

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -
Section 140 and 166 - Civil Procedure Code -
Section 2(11) - Legal Representative -
Meaning - Entitlement of father in absence of
mother to receive compensation - The term
'Legal Representative' has been considered
to be inclusive and the courts have given it a
wider scope of applicability - It would
include legal heir - The person who can
represent the estate of the deceased would
be included in the term legal representative -
The term therefore includes earning wife and
parents and all legal heirs - Held, in the
situation when mother died, the father
become legal representative and is entitled
to get compensation. (Para 6 and 13)
B. Motor Accident Claim - Computation of
Compensation
-
Future
Prospects
-
Application of Multiplier - Non pecuniary
Damages - The multiplier of 16 granted by the
tribunal was revisited in view of the decision
in Sarla Verma and the multiplier of 18 was
applied - Held, the appellant is entitled to an
addition of 40% of the income of the
deceased
towards
future
prospects
-
Compensation re-computed. (Para 17)
Appeal partly allowed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Smt. Sarla Verma & ors. Vs Delhi Transport
Corporation & anr.; 2009 ACJ 1298
2. National Insurance Company Limited Vs
Pranay Sethi & ors.; 2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050
3. GSRTC Vs Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai AIR 1987 SC 1690
4. A.V. Padma Vs Venugopal; 2012 (1) GLH (SC) 442
5. Smt. Hansaguti P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd.; 2007(2) GLH 291
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. Heard learned advocate Shri Amit
Kumar Sinha with Ram sing for the
appellants original claimants and Sri Arun
Kumar Shukla for the respondent insurance
company. None appears for owner or driver
of the vehicle involved in the accident

2. The parties are referred as
appellants
and
respondent
insurance
company.

3. This appeal challenges the award
and decree / order dated 16 09 2003 passed
by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Allahabad, in M.A.C.P.No.187of 2001
awarding a sum of Rs 1,72,000/- with
conditional interest at the rate of 8% if the
compensation was not deposited within 2
months of passing of the award. The
insurance company has accepted their
liability as the award is challenged by the
claimants appellants herein.

4. I am pained to narrate that though
this petition was preferred in the year 2004
despite several applications for listing the
matter were filed only in the year 2014 the
delay came to be condoned. The claimants
during this period attained the status of
senior citizens and the mother of the
deceased passed away in the year 2017.
The application declaring this fact was filed
as
an
amendment
application
with
application
for
early
hearing.
The
amendment application nowhere stated that
there were no other heirs of the mother of
the deceased except that the appellant no1
was her legal representative and heir. The
court had ordered to place amendment on
record this shows the pathetic condition of
a senior citizen. On 19.11.2020 again a
application was filed and the matter was
order to be listed on 26.11.2020. The
accident having caused the death of the son
of the appellants is not in dispute. Liability
is that of the insurance company is
accepted as there is no challenge the same
12 All. Shambhu Nath Shukla & Anr. Vs. Raghubir Singh & Anr.
107
.issue of negligence decided by the tribunal
is also not in controversy .The twin
controversy is compensation is on lower
side and interest could not be ordered to be
paid only in default. The twin dispute
raised by insurance companies' counsel is
that no enhancement can be granted as
there is proof of income and due e flux of
time mother having passed away father
cannot be granted compensation leave apart
enhancement Both the ld counsels have
placed reliance on the below mentioned
decisions of the Apex Court to bring home
their rival contentions in Smt. Sarla Verma
and
others
Vs.
Delhi
Transport
Corporation and another, reported in 2009
ACJ 1298;and it is submitted that the
compensation payable to the appellants be
as per the decision of the Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 0 Supreme
(SC) 1050.

5. This appeal is taken for hearing as
it relates to Senior citizens out of two one
has left this world in the year 2016.The
appellant no1 who is now a senior citizen
lost his young son Tez Narayan who was
aged about 20 years, he was a student of
Inter Science stream and he was survived
by Shambhunath Shukla and Urmila Devi
both his parents in their youth in the year of
accident that is 2000. Urmila Devi was
mother of the deceased, unfortunately, in
the month of December, 2016, she passed
away. Shambhunath appellant no 1 is now
litigating in dual capacity as father of Tej
and heir of Urmiladevi who is presumed to
have died intestate leaving no other heir
except appellant no 1.as no other class 1
heir of Urmiladevi has approached this
court since Dec 2016 nor is there
declaration that there are any other legal
heir or representative of Urmiladevi or
deceased Tej save and except appellant no 1
who is the father of Tej and husband of
Urmiladevi original appellant no 2 The
appellant no 1 therefore gets into the
heirship of, of Urmila Devi. The term legal
representative has not been defined in the
Motor Vehicles Act 1939 or 1988 Act. The
2019 Amendment also does not define the
term
legal
representative.
Certain
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure
are made applicable to the Motor Vehicles
Act 1988 and Tribunals and higher Courts
have
interpreted
the
term
legal
representative so as to give purposive
interpretation to the said definition. In view
of this position we will have to take
recourse to umbrella legislation namely
Code of Civil Procedure 1908.Section 2
(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure defines
the term ''legal representative' which reads
as under:

"Section
2
(11)
"legal
representative" means any person who in
law represents the estate of a deceased
person, and includes any person who inter
meddles with the estate of the deceased and
where a party sues or is sued in a
representative character the person on
whom the estate devolves on the death of
the party suing or sued;"

6. Meaning of legal representative
given u/s 2(11) of Code of Civil Procedure
has to be interpreted in view of the term
mentioned in section 140 and166 of MV
Act 1988 which has used the term legal
representative and not Dependent legal
representative.
The
term
has
been
considered to be inclusive and the courts
have given it a wider scope of applicability.
The person may not be a heir so as to file
case under section 140 and 166 of the Act.
The term would include legal heir. The
person who can represent the estate of the
deceased would be included in the term
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
legal representative. The term therefore
includes earning wife and parents and all
legal heirs.

7. In the case titled GSRTC Vs
Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai A 87 SC 1690,
the Supreme Court has held that for
claiming compensation under either of the
Acts the term legal representative cannot be
given a narrow meaning as ascribed in
Fatal Accidents ACT 1855. Dependency is
not basic criteria for relief in accident cases
to the claimants if they are legal heir or
legal representative of deceased. Meaning
of legal representative given u/s 2(11) of
Code of Civil Procedure which reads as
"legal representative" means a person who
in law represents the estate of a deceased
person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and
where a party sues or is sued in a
representative character the person on
whom the estate devolves on the death of
the party so suing or sued;

8. The term has to be interpreted in
view of the term mentioned in section 140
and166 of MV Act 1988 which has used the
term
legal
representative
and
not
Dependent legal representative. The term
has been considered to be inclusive and the
courts have given it a wider scope of
applicability. The person may not be a heir
so as to file case under section 140 and 166
of the Act. The term would include legal
heir. The person who can represent the
estate of the deceased would be included in
the term legal representative. The term
therefore includes earning wife and parents
and all legal heirs. There is a mis reading of
the decision of the Apex court in Sarla
Verma and Manjuri Bera (Supra) to
contend that Father cannot be granted
compensation for death of his unmarried
child .

9. The observation of the Apex Court
in Sarla Verma (supra) is reproduced as
under :

15. "Where the deceased was a
bachelor and the claimants are the parents,
the deduction follows a different principle.
In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is
deducted as personal and living expenses,
because it is assumed that a bachelor
would tend to spend more on himself. Even
otherwise, there is also the possibility of his
getting married in a short time, in which
event the contribution to the parent/s and
siblings is likely to be cut drastically.
Further, subject to evidence to the contrary,
the father is likely to have his own income
and will not be considered as a dependent
and the mother alone will be considered as
a dependent. In the absence of evidence to
the contrary, brothers and sisters will not
be considered as dependents, because they
will either be independent and earning, or
married, or be dependent on the father.
Thus even if the deceased is survived by
parents and siblings, only the mother would
be considered to be a dependent, and 50%
would be treated as the personal and living
expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the
contribution to the family. However, where
family of the bachelor is large and
dependent on the income of the deceased,
as in a case where he has a widowed
mother and large number of younger nonearning sisters or brothers, his personal
and living expenses may be restricted to
one-third and contribution to the family
will be taken as two-third."

10. In Section-166 Of the Act the term
used is legal representative. In the present
case, the deceased was a person, who was
living with the appellants. The M.V.Act is a
social piece of legislation and it can be seen
that the appellants are parents and can be
12 All. Shambhu Nath Shukla & Anr. Vs. Raghubir Singh & Anr.
109
said to be legal heirs falling in either
schedule of Hindu Succession Act. The
term legal as defined by dictionary means
pertaining to or according to law and the
term representative means one who actually
succeeds to the property title on the death
of its previous holder, which means a
person entitled to succeed when the present
possessor
dies.
The
term
legal
representative and legal heir are differently
used. The Hindu Law, more particularly
Hindu Succession Act, divides the heirs in
Class-I and Class-II as far as present
appellants are concerned, the appellants can
be said to be falling in Class-I. It is an
admitted position of fact that mother is a
Class-I heir and father is in Class-II both
has the following categories of heirs.

Heirs in Class-I

11. Son; daughter; widow; mother;
son of a predeceased son; daughter of a
predeceased son; son of a predeceased
daughter; daughter of a predeceased
daughter; widow of a predecease son; son
of a predeceased son of a predeceased son;
daughter of a predeceased son of a
predeceased son; widow of a predeceased
son of a predeceased son [son of a predeceased
daughter
of
a
predeceased
daughter;
daughter
of
a
pr-deceased
daughter of a predeceased daughter;
daughter of a pre-deceased son of a
predeceased daughter; daughter of a predeceased daughter of a predeceased son].

Heirs in Class-II

I. Father

II. (1) Son's daughter's son; (2)
son's daughter's daughter; (3) brother; (4)
sister.

III. (1) Daughter's son's son; (2)
daughter's son's daughter; (3) daughter's
daughters' son; (4) daughter's daughter's
daughter.

IV. (1) Brother's son; (2) sister's
son; (3) brother's daughter; (4) sister's
daughter.

V. Father's father; father's mother.

VI. Father's widow; brother's
widow.

VII. Father's brother; father's
sister.

VIII. Mother's father; mother's
mother.

IX. Mother's brother; mother's
sister.

12. Ordinarily, heirs of the deceased
persons who represents the estate of the
deceased and are his legal representatives a
claim can be made by legal heirs and
therefore, other relatives of the deceased
who are not the heirs of the deceased and
not being his legal representatives or
dependent
on
him
cannot
claimcompensation. In the case on hand now the
father is claiming as heir of his deceased
wife and as per section 15 of The Hindu
Succession Act 1956,which relates to
general rules of succession in case of
female Hindus the property of intestate
female will devolve-firstly on sons and
daughters and husband. In light of the
discussion made herein above which was
necessitated because of the submission of
ld counsel for respondent that appellant no1
cannot claim compensation in light of the
decisions of Apex Court in Sarla Verma
(supra) the undersigned is unable to accept
the submission of Shri Shukla ld counsel
for respondent that the father would have
his own income and, therefore, he would
not be entitled to any compensation or
enhancement.

13. As narrated here-in-above, the
claim was by the father and the mother in
110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
normal circumstances in presence of
mother as per the judgment of Sarla
Verma, the father may not be entitled to
share the Supreme Court in the Case of
Sarla Verma has not laid down straight
preposition that father cannot be granted
compensation such a reading of the
decision would be against the very spirit of
the legislation and would be reading the
judgment in piecemeal which is not the
intent of the decision may that as it may be,
the situation in this case due to passage of
time is now different and therefore
appellant
no
1
becomes
a
legal
representative rather class one heir of
Urmila has envisaged under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act.1988. IN This
backdrop the calculation and compensation
awarded be assessed.

14. The accident occurred in the year
2000.The tribunal considered the income of
the deceased who was 12th standard
student at Rs.15,000/- per year and granted
multiplier of 16.deducted one third for
personal expenses of the minor and
Rs.12000towards non pecuniary damages
The tribunal placed reliance on the
schedule appended to the Act under section
163 A of the Act and directed the insurance
company to deposit the compensation
within2 months failing which the company
would be liable to deposit the same with
8% interest.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that even in the year 2000 the
income
of
the
deceased
should
be
considered to be Rs.3000/per month- to
which 40% be added towards future loss of
income as the deceased was below the age
of 40 and was student and the deduction of
one third deducted is just and proper
however later submitted that 50 % of the
average amount has to be deducted. And Rs
70,000/- should be added under the head of
non peculiar damages. It is further
submitted that multiplier be granted as per
Sarla Verma's decision and future prospect
has not been granted which may be granted
as per National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others,
2017 0 Supreme (SC) 1050, and has further
requested to grant 18% interest. It is further
submitted that the grant of condition in
awarding interest is also bad in law.

16. Sri Shukla ld. Advocate for the
Insurance
company
has
vehemently
objected to enhance the compensation it is
further submitted that the income of
deceased has been assessed on higher side
by the tribunal and has only deducted one
third towards personal expenses it is
submitted that he was a student of Inter his
income cannot be considered to be 3000/-
of course he could not point out that why
future income should be added as per
Pranav Sethi. He has further submitted
that the deduction should not have been 1/3
but 50%as the deceased was a bachelor
which have accepted by Shri Sinha, counsel
for the appellant.

17. The calculation of compensation
would have to be revisited. The income of
Rs.15,000/-per annum is enhanced to
Rs.24,000/- per annum which is added by
40% which would mean Rs2000plus40%
which would come to Rs.2800/per month
deduction of 1/2 for personal expenses the
same amount would be 1400 multiplied by
12. The multiplier of 16 granted by the
tribunal will also have to be revisited in
view of the decision in Sarla Verma and it
would be 18. As far as the amount under
non pecuniary damages is concerned, the
same will have to be fixed at additional
amount
Rs.50,000/-
for
the
filial
consortium which now father would be
12 All. Shambhu Nath Shukla & Anr. Vs. Raghubir Singh & Anr.
111
entitled as amount of RS 12000 awarded by
the tribunal already deposited would have
been
utilized
by
the
mother.
The
Compensation is computed herein below:

i. Income Rs.2000/per month

ii. Percentage towards future
prospects : 40% namely Rs 800/per month

iii. Total income : Rs. 2000Plus
Rs 8000 =Rs2800

iv. Income after deduction of
50%: Rs. 1400/

v. Annual income : Rs.1400 x 12
= Rs 16800/

vi. Multiplier applicable : 18

vii. Loss of dependency: Rs x
18= Rs.302,400/

viii. Amount under non pecuniary
heads : additional Rs50000/

ix.
Total
compensation:
Rs
3,52,400/- Plus Rs12,000 already awarded.

18. As far as issue of rate of interest is
concerned, the interest at the rate of 8% is
disturbed in light of the following facts The
matter remained pending for default for 10
yrs the repo rate has come down .the rate of
interest would be7.5 % from date of filing
of claim petition till the amount was
deposited and 4% thereafter till the amount
is deposited by the respondents as ordered
by the tribunal.

19. No other grounds are urged orally
when the matter was heard.

20. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Judgment and decree
passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified
to the aforesaid extent.

21. The amount be deposited by the
respondent-Insurance Company within a
period of 12 weeks from today with interest
at the rate of7.5%from the date of filing of
the claim petition till the judgment of the
Tribunal and 4% thereafter till the amount
is deposited.

22. The amount already deposited be
deducted from the amount to be deposited.

23. I agree with the submission made
by Shri Shukla,that the additional amount
be permitted to be deposited on or before
28th of February, 2021.

24. On depositing the amount in the
Registry of Tribunal, Registry is directed to
first deduct the amount of deficit court fees,
if any. Considering the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V.
Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012
(1) GLH (SC), 442. The order of
investment
is
not
passed
because
applicants/claimants are neither illiterate
nor rustic villagers.

25. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansaguti P. Ladhani v/s The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.,
reported in 2007(2) GLH 291, total
amount of interest, accrued on the principal
amount
of
compensation
is
to
be
apportioned on financial year to financial
year basis and if the interest payable to
claimant for any financial year exceeds
Rs.50,000/-,
insurance
company/owner
is/are entitled to deduct appropriate amount
under the head of 'Tax Deducted at Source'
as provided u/s 194A (3) (ix) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 and if the amount of interest
does not exceeds Rs.50,000/- in any
financial year, registry of this Tribunal is
directed to allow the claimant to withdraw
the
amount
without
producing
the
certificate from the concerned Income- Tax
Authority. The aforesaid view has been
reiterated by this High Court in Review
112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal
From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna
and others Vs. Hari Singh and another)
while disbursing the amount.

26. Fresh award be drawn accordingly
in the above petition by the tribunal as per
the
modification
made
herein.
The
Tribunals in the State shall follow the
direction
of
this
Court
as
herein
aforementioned as far as disbursement is
concerned, it should look into the condition
of the litigant and the pendency of the
matter and not blindly apply the judgment
of A.V. Padma (supra). The same is to be
applied looking to the facts of each case.

27. No amount shall be kept in fix
deposit as Shambhu Nath Shukla, appellant
has become a senior citizen, no TDS shall
be deducted as per direction of this Court
by the insurance company.

28. This court is thankful to both the
counsels for getting the appeal disposed of as the
matter is now pending since more than 20 years.
----------
(2020)12ILR A112
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.11.2020
as well as 21.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1563 of 2020

Shailendra Tripathi & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Dharmendra Yadav & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Yogesh Kumar Tripathi, Sri Sanjay
Kumar Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rahul Sahai

A. Civil Law- Motor Accident Claim - Motor
Vehicle Act, 1988 - Section 163A, 164 and
166 -Limitation- Maintainability of Claim
filed beyond six months -Applicability of
Section 166(3)-Effect of notification of the
Amendment Act, 2019-Since, Sections 50 to
57 of the Amendment Act are not notified,
claimant/s can still prefer an application u/s
140 of the Principal Act independently or
along with an application for compensation
u/s 166 or in alternative claimant/s can
prefer an application u/s 163-A of the
Principal Act for compensation based on the
structured formula-Held, since now, there is
no provision which provides for seeking
condonation of delay, if an application for
compensation is filed beyond the period of
six months from the date of the accident, till
the time Section 53 of the Amendment Act is
notified, the claimant/s are not required to
prefer an application for condensation of
delay-Impugned order of the Tribunal
quashed. (Para 15, 16 and 21)

Appeal allowed (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellants and learned counsel for the
Insurance Company and Sri Ojha, learned
counsel for the State as Amicus Curiae.

2. Amendment, if any, be carried out
during the course of day.

3. This appeal is at the behest of
claimants whose claim petition came to be
dismissed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as
"the Tribunal" holding that as the accident
took place on 24.12.2019 and the petition
was filed on 20.8.2020, hence, the claim
petition was filed beyond six months as per
the amended provisions of Section 166 (3)