"Motor Accident Claims Tribunals Cannot Dismiss Claims on Limitation Grounds Under Section 16(3) of MV Act Until SC Decides": Supreme Court

“During pendency of these petitions, the Tribunal or the High Courts shall not dismiss the claim petitions on the ground of limitation as prescribed under sub-Section (3) of Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988” - In a significant interim direction impacting hundreds of pending motor accident compensation cases across the country, the Supreme Court of India held that no Motor Accident Claims Tribunal or High Court shall dismiss compensation petitions for being time-barred under Section 16(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while these petitions are pending before the apex court.

The bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria issued this blanket protective interim order, thereby stalling the operation of the limitation clause under Section 16(3) inserted through the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, until the constitutional and interpretational questions raised in the pending SLPs are adjudicated finally.

"Any Finding Would Have Bearing on Petitions Nationwide" — Supreme Court Expedites Hearing

"Hearing of these matters requires to be expedited... Re-list on 25.11.2025"

Acknowledging that multiple petitions across the country raise the same legal issue concerning the applicability and constitutional validity of the three-year limitation period under Section 16(3) of the MV Act, the Court noted:

“This court has been informed that there are a number of petitions across the country filed on the same issue and any finding recorded by this Court would have bearing on the pending petitions. In that view of the matter, the hearing of these matters requires to be expedited.”

Accordingly, the Court directed all pleadings to be completed within two weeks, warning that failure to file would forfeit the party’s right to plead, and fixed the batch for final hearing on 25 November 2025.

Section 16(3) Under Challenge: New Limitation Clause Sparks Nationwide Litigation

The batch of SLPs arises out of orders passed by the Telangana High Court (in W.P. Nos. 1395 & 1396/2023) and other High Courts, which interpreted or applied Section 16(3) inserted by the 2019 amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Section 16(3) reads:

"No application for compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within a period of three years from the date of occurrence of the accident."

This clause introduced a statutory time-bar for filing motor accident compensation claims before the MACTs — a departure from the earlier legal position, where no limitation was prescribed for such petitions under Section 166 of the MV Act (prior to amendment).

This new provision has been widely contested by victims’ families, NGOs, and insurers alike — the former arguing that it violates the principles of social welfare and access to justice, while the latter insist on legal certainty and early closure of claims.

Supreme Court Nomination of Nodal Counsel and Procedural Directions

To facilitate streamlined proceedings across this sprawling litigation matrix, the Court appointed Mr. Gautam Jha, Advocate, as the nodal counsel for the entire batch. The following directions were issued:

“Pleadings shall be completed, if not already completed, within two weeks from today, failure to do so would result in such those parties losing their right to file pleadings.”

The Court further clarified:

“Learned counsel appearing for the parties are at liberty to file written synopsis, not exceeding five pages, within two weeks from today and each of the counsel would be permitted to address the oral arguments not exceeding half-an-hour.”

Impact of Interim Protection: Suspension of Dismissals on Limitation Grounds

The most crucial protective direction came in para 5 of the Court's order:

“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) of Section 16(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.”

This means that, until the Supreme Court pronounces a final ruling, all pending and fresh claims before MACTs cannot be rejected for being beyond three years from the date of accident, even if prima facie barred under Section 16(3).

The legal and constitutional validity of the provision remains under examination.

Relief for Victims and Clarification Awaited on Time-Barred Claims

With this interim direction, the Supreme Court has temporarily stayed the operation of the limitation clause under Section 16(3), thus safeguarding access to compensation for accident victims, even if their claims were filed beyond the newly introduced three-year period.

Until the Court rules on the validity and interpretation of Section 16(3), MACTs and High Courts across India are barred from dismissing claims solely on the ground of delay.

The upcoming hearing on 25 November 2025 is now crucial — as the apex court is set to decide whether a time limit on compensation petitions violates the social welfare objective of the Motor Vehicles Act and the constitutional right to seek remedy.

Date of Order: 4 November 2025