Sannahalamma and Another vs State of Mysore and Others

Venkataswami, J.—This appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 363 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, is directed against the dismissal of a claim made by the appellants herein u/s 110-A of Act. The claim arose on account of the fatal accident suffered by their only son on 6-6-1964 on Circuit House Road in Shimoga Town. The appellants are the natural parents of the said boy who was unfortunately killed on the spot on account of the dashing of the lorry belonging to the Public Works Department of the Government of Mysore- During the pendency of the appeal, the father of the deceased boy, the second appellant herein, is reported dead by a memo filed today and it is also submitted therein that the first appellant is the only surviving heir entitled to prosecute the appeal. The material facts are these, the deceased son of the appellants died on 6-6-1964 on account of the accident referred to above. It would appear that he is the only child of his parents. The petition claiming compensation was filed on 19-4-1965, and, therefore, was clearly beyond the period of limitation prescribed, which is sixty days from the date of the accident Obviously, to get over this difficulty, the claimants filed an application for condonation of delay in preferring the petition in accordance with the provisions of the proviso to Section 110-A(3) of the Act. This application was normally opposed on behalf of the respondents, the terms of the objection being confined to the following:

The petition la clearly barred by time. The grounds for condoning the delay on the face of it are not sufficient and substantial. It is, therefore, submitted that the delay in filing the application cannot be condoned.

The Tribunal after an examination of the grounds urged in support of the application for condonation of delay refused to exercise its discretion in favour of the appellants and rejected the claim petition. Hence this appeal.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that this is a fit case where the discretion vested in the Tribunal ought to have been exercised in favour of the appellants, thus condoning the delay in the presentation of the petition. The proviso to Section 110-A(3) of the Act in question enjoins that the Claims Tribunal could entertain a claim petition after the expiry of the period of sixty days if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented from sufficient cause from making the petition in time. It is fairly well settled that the phrase ''sufficient cause'' occurring in the said proviso should not receive a narrow construction treating it on a par with the provisions of Section 5 of the limitation Act. In the instant case the principal reason urged is that the parents were suffering from shock on account of the death of their only child on account of the unfortunate accident. It is also seen Cram the affidavit of the second appellant that there is a reference to the criminal proceedings instituted against the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident and that he applied for certified copies of the proceedings therein only after his transfer to Sagar. This, in our view, would clearly give rise to an inference that he must have done so on legal advice. What is more, there is also reference to the consultation with an Advocate before filing the petition. We are also inclined to think that the ground relative to the shock suffered by the parents on account of the death of their only child is not wholly irrelevant to the question at issue. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the delay in preferring the petition ought to have been condoned The order of the Court below, is, therefore, clearly unsustainable. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim at the preliminary stage without going into the merits of the case. We therefore, allow this appeal and condone the delay in the presentation of the petition by the appellants, and remit the case to the Tribunal below for disposal in accordance with law, and after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims.

There will be no order as to costs.