Supreme Court Orders That Motor Accident Claims Must Not Be Dismissed as Time-Barred While Validity of Section 166(3) MV Act is Under Review
New Delhi | Updates: 07.11.2025
Court issues interim protection to accident victims; directs Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and High Courts not to reject claims merely because they were filed after six months of the accident.
In an important relief for road accident victims across India, the Supreme Court of India has issued an interim order directing that no motor accident compensation claim shall be dismissed solely on the ground of limitation. This direction comes while the Court is examining the constitutional validity of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was introduced through the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 and came into effect from 1 April 2022.
Section 166(3) states that a victim or the legal representatives of a deceased person must file a claim for compensation within six months of the date of the accident. Before this amendment, there was no fixed limitation period, allowing accident victims to file claims even after several years, depending on circumstances and evidence.
A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria passed the interim order after considering a writ petition filed challenging the validity of this provision. The petitioner, a practicing advocate, argued that the six-month limitation unfairly restricts the rights of victims, many of whom may take much longer to recover medically, arrange documents, or even understand their legal rights.
The Court acknowledged that motor accident claims are not ordinary civil disputes, but arise out of unforeseen tragedies that often leave individuals in physical, emotional, and financial distress. The purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act is remedial and social-welfare oriented, intended to ensure that accident victims or their families are not left without support. The bench observed that imposing a strict time-limit may defeat the very purpose of the legislation.
The petition pointed out that victims frequently spend months in hospitals or rehabilitation, and families of the deceased often deal with shock, financial burdens, and procedural hurdles. Expecting them to initiate legal proceedings within six months, without exception, could be unreasonable and inconsistent with the right to equality (Article 14) and the right to life and dignity (Article 21) under the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court took note that several similar petitions challenging Section 166(3) are pending in different High Courts, and the outcome of this case will have a nationwide impact. To prevent inconsistent or unjust outcomes during the pendency of the proceedings, the Court issued a uniform interim direction.
The Court’s Interim Order:
“No Motor Accident Claims Tribunal or High Court shall dismiss any motor accident compensation claim solely on the ground that it has been filed beyond the period of limitation under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, until further orders.”
This effectively pauses the strict enforcement of the six-month deadline, ensuring that victims can still file claims and have their cases heard on merits rather than being rejected at the threshold.
The Court also directed the parties to complete all pleadings promptly, emphasizing that this issue concerns a large number of affected citizens and should be decided without delay. The matter has been scheduled for further hearing later this month.
Why This Order Matters:
- Protection for Victims:
Accident victims and bereaved families will not lose their chance to seek compensation simply because they could not file the claim quickly after the accident. - Prevention of Injustice:
Claims that may have earlier been dismissed as “time-barred” will now be considered on the basis of facts and evidence. - Clarification of Legal Position:
Until the Supreme Court makes a final decision, all tribunals and courts across the country will follow a uniform approach. - Recognition of Practical Realities:
The Court has acknowledged that victims often need time to recover, gather medical records, police documents, insurance details, and financial resources before approaching legal forums.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s interim order is a major step toward safeguarding the rights of accident victims. By preventing technical dismissal of claims, the Court has emphasized that law should serve justice, not complicate it. The final judgment on the constitutional validity of Section 166(3) will determine whether the six-month limitation stays, gets modified, or is struck down. For now, accident victims have much-needed breathing space to pursue their claims.
All news content is for informational purposes only. We do not guarantee the accuracy or authenticity of any news item.
LawPGLU