The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that execution petitions filed by insurance companies under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for recovery of compensation are subject to the twelve-year limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act, 1963. The Court rejected the argument that because the Motor Vehicles Act does not itself prescribe a period of limitation for such execution proceedings, they can be filed at any time.
In the case at hand, a claimant had filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the death of a person in a road accident. The claim was allowed and a sum of ₹50,000 was awarded. The insurance company appealed, and the High Court upheld the award but modified it. Notably, in its order, the High Court reserved the right of the insurance company to recover the awarded amount from the vehicle owner. Following that, the insurance company filed an execution petition under Section 174 in November 2017 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT), seeking recovery of its liability from the owner. The MACT granted the execution petition in June 2023, directing the vehicle owner to indemnify the insurance company.
The vehicle owner challenged the tribunal’s order before the Himachal Pradesh High Court on the ground that the execution petition was filed long after the limitation period had expired. The insurance company’s defence was that since there is no express limitation period prescribed under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act for execution petitions, the execution petition was legally valid even though filed many years after the original order.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, however, disagreed. The Court observed that under the Limitation Act, 1963, the period for executing a decree or order is twelve years from the date the right to apply accrues. In the given case, the right to apply to recover the sum from the vehicle owner accrued in May 2005, which was when the High Court, in its appellate decision, reserved the insurance company’s right to recover from the owner. Since the execution petition was filed in November 2017, it was clearly beyond twelve years from that accrual date.
The Court held that even though Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for recovery of compensation as arrears of land revenue, this does not exempt execution petitions under that section from limitation laws. The Court reinforced that statutory provisions allowing execution are not exceptions to the general law of limitation unless the statute clearly states so. Because the execution petition in the case was filed after the twelve-year limitation period had expired, the High Court set aside the tribunal’s order granting the execution petition.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.