Surjan Singh v. Sharda Devi — 1978 DIGILAW 1233 (ALL)

JUDGMENT : H.N. SETH, J. 1. The Appellants who were opposite parties in a claim filed u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act have come up in appeal against the award dated 23-12-1972 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Meerut. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/-to the applicants as Compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of death of one Mahendra Singh which took Place on 15th December, 1969 at 9.45 A.M. 2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has pressed the following two points before us 1. That the claim made by the claimants was barred by time, and 2. That the Tribunal erred in holding that the death of Mahendra Singh was caused because of rash and negligent driving of truck No. U.S.L. 8738. 3. So far as the first point raised by the Appellants is concerned the accident in question took place on 15th December, 1969. The claim petition was filed on 9th April 1970. According to the law as it stood on 15th of December 1969 the claim petition could be filed within 60 days of the accident. When at the time of the hearing of the petition an objection with regard to limitation was raised, the claimants filed an application supported by an affidavit on 19th February,1972 in which it was alleged that the claimants had approached their counsel at Delhi on 20th of January, 1970 and had paid him his full fees The counsel assured them that limitation for making the claim had been extended to six months and as such the petition could be filed within six months and that he would file the same in due course. The applicant waited for information from his client and ultimately filed the claim on 9th of April, 1970. The claimants, therefore, prayed that the delay in filing the claim petition be condoned. 4. The applicant waited for information from his client and ultimately filed the claim on 9th of April, 1970. The claimants, therefore, prayed that the delay in filing the claim petition be condoned. 4. Aforesaid application filed by the claimant was resisted by the Appellants on two grounds, firstly that the application to condone the delay should have been filed at the time of presenting the claim petition and that it could not be filed at subsequent stage; secondly that the reason given in the application for condoning the delay could not be accepted inasmuch as the law by which the period of limitation was extended from 60 days to 6 months, came into force only on 2nd of March 1970, i.e., after the period of limitation for filing tie claim had already expired. In the circumstances, there was no question of any counsel advising in the month of January 1970 that the limitation for filing the claim petition was six months. 5. The Claims Tribunal in our opinion, rightly rejected the first submission made by the counsel for the Appellant. The law merely requires that if a claim u/s 110-A has been filed beyond the period of limitation the claimant has to explain the delay and if the Tribunal is satisfied with the explanation it can condone the same and entertain the petition even after the period of limitation for filing the same has expired. The law does not require that the explanation for the delay in filing the claim must necessarily accompany the claim petition itself. It may be that if the explanation is offered at a later stage the Tribunal may suspect it and scrutinise the same with great amount of care. The Tribunal, therefore, had ample jurisdiction to entertain the explanation offered by the claimants. 6. Coming now to the merits of the explanation offered by the claimants we find that actually Section 110-A had been amended by Act No. 96 of 1969 which was passed on 29th of December, 1970. However, it was enforced subsequently with effect from 2nd of March, 1970. If the counsel overlooked the fact that the Act which had been passed on 29-12-70 had actually not been enforced, he could advise the claimants that limitation for filing the claim had been extended to six months. However, it was enforced subsequently with effect from 2nd of March, 1970. If the counsel overlooked the fact that the Act which had been passed on 29-12-70 had actually not been enforced, he could advise the claimants that limitation for filing the claim had been extended to six months. In the circumstances the explanation of the claimants that they had handed over the papers to the concerned on the 20th January, 1970 and that the counsel had advised that the limitation for filing the claim had been extended to six months on the basis of Act No. 56 of 1969 can be true and unless there is some special reason it should be accepted as correct. The Claims Tribunal in our opinion correctly pointed out that there is nothing improbable that the counsel, who was aware of Act No. 56 of 1969 did not notice that the Act did not come into force and advised the claimants that the limitation for filing the claim had been extended for six months. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant strenuously argued before us that the mere finding to the effect that it was probable that the claimants had been misguided by counsel's advise does not lead to the conclusion that the claimants had in fact been so misguided. The Claims Tribunal therefore was not justified in condoning the delay merely on the finding. 8. We are satisfied that there is no merit in the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel. A perusal of the order made by the Claims Tribunal read as a whole indicates that it believed the averment made in this regard by the claimant and that is why it decided to entertain the petition even after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed in Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. We are also satisfied that the explanation offered by the claimants is true and the Claims Tribunal acted correctly in entertaining the claim petition. 9. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that the case of the applicant was that the accident took place near Mohan Meakin Brewery in the town of Mohan Nagar. At that time the tanker No. 8738 was being driven by one Surjan Singh and the deceased was proceeding on a cycle towards Sahibabad. The oil tanker No. USL-8730 was coming from the side of Delhi at a very high speed. At that time the tanker No. 8738 was being driven by one Surjan Singh and the deceased was proceeding on a cycle towards Sahibabad. The oil tanker No. USL-8730 was coming from the side of Delhi at a very high speed. It went on the patri and dashed against the cycle of Mahendra Singh who died on the spot. Thereafter the driver of the oil tanker escaped with the oil tanker. One of the witnesses chased him on his motor car and stopped him at a distance of half a mile from Mohan Nagar. The driver was then taken to the police station Sahibabad where he was handed over to the police after lodging an F.I.R. The case of the Appellant, however, was that Surjan Singh, driver of the oil tanker was not negligent. He was driving the tanker at a speed below 40 miles per hour. When the tanker reached near Mohan Nagar a bus was standing ahead of it. As Surjan Singh was crossing the bus, Mahendra Singh came out from behind the standing bus and was run over. The case of the Appellant is that it was the deceased himself who acted rashly and negligently in crossing the standing bus without ascertaining if some vehicle was coming from the other side. 10. In support of its case the claimants examined one P.W.3, Ram Kanwal Singh. Ram Kanwal Singh is a respectable person who is an employee of Mohan Meakins Breweries in the town of Mohan Nagar. There is absolutely no reason for him either to depose against the Appellant or to falsely support the case of the claimants. In support of its case the defence examined driver Surjan Singh who had after the accident tried to escape and who was prosecuted and convicted for an offence of rash and negligent driving. In the circumstances the Claims Tribunal cannot be blamed for not accepting his statement and preferring that of Ram Kanwal Singh with regard to the manner in which the accident took place. After going through the evidence, we are inclined to agree with the Claims Tribunal that the version of the accident as given by Ram Kanwal Singh is wholly reliable and on the basis of his statement it can be said that death of Mahendra Singh had been caused because of rash and negligent driving by Surjan Singh. After going through the evidence, we are inclined to agree with the Claims Tribunal that the version of the accident as given by Ram Kanwal Singh is wholly reliable and on the basis of his statement it can be said that death of Mahendra Singh had been caused because of rash and negligent driving by Surjan Singh. In this view of the matter the award that the Respondents are liable to compensate the claimants for the death of Mahendra Singh has to be upheld. 11. We have also before us a cross-objection by claimants who claim that the compensation awarded to them is too little and that the Claims Tribunal should have awarded the extra compensation as claimed by them. In the case of Virendra Singh v. Phoolmati in F.A.F.O. No. 343 of 1973 decided on 7-8-78, it had been held that no cross-objection under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 of CPC is maintainable in connection with an appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. The cross-objection filed by the claimants not being maintainable has to be rejected. 12. In the result, both the appeal and the cross-objection fail and are dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.