A single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court, led by Justice Amit Rawal, recently interpreted the meaning of the word "Month" for the purposes of determining the six-month limitation period prescribed by the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 2019. 

According to Justice Amit Rawal,

"Sub-section (35) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1987 applicable to the State of Kerala would mean a month reckoned according to the British calendar, the same reads as ... : “month” shall mean a month reckoned according to the British calendar".

As a result, the Court determined that the 6-month period for filing a claim petition under the Act of 2019, must be calculated from the date of the accident.

"By taking the definition of a month as the period to be counted for the purpose of limitation, filing of the claim petition within a period of six months has to be calculated from the date of accident". 

On May 10, 2022, the petitioner was hit by a car driven by the first respondent. 

On behalf of the petitioner, Advocates R. Sreehari and Hamza A.V. contended that the MACT should not have returned the petition and should have called the other side and framed the issues to determine whether the claim petition is barred by limitation or not. 

It was argued that the six-month period must be calculated from the date of the accident, rather than by counting each day of the month. The counsels also relied on the decision in Bibi Salma Khatoon v. State of Bihar (2001), in which the Court calculated the limitation period after considering the meaning of the word month' and excluding the date from which the limitation is stated to have begun. 

Finding that the claim petition had to be filed within six months of the date of the accident, the court determined that the date of the accident, November 10th, is the last date of six months on which the claim petition was instituted.

The Court also relied on the decision in Bibi Salma Khatoon v. State of Bihar (2001), in which the Court examined the provisions of the local General Clauses Act and determined that the legislature's intent was months rather than days.

"I am of the view that MACT ought not to have returned the petition by calculating the limitation in the manner and mode as has been done. At the best, could have framed the issue and put the parties to lead evidence on that or hear the argument by taking into consideration the provisions of the law. Since I have already undertaken this exercise, it would be a farcical exercise for this Court to direct the learned MACT to frame the issue and decide the same," the Court said, while setting aside the impugned order of the MACT.

The Superintendent of the District Court was thus directed to register the claim petition, assign it to the appropriate court, and proceed with it in accordance with the law.

Case Title: Vimala Jose v. Aboobacker & Ors.
Citation: OP (MAC) NO. 136 OF 2022