Shri Romesh Chander vs Shri Sumer Singh Alias Kehar Singh and another

Ajit Singh Bains, J.—Romesh Chand has filed this appeal against the order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur, dated August 4, 1971.

The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 3rd July, 1969 Ramesh Chander Singh, appellant, was returning to Dasuya from Mukerian on a motorcycle. Om Parkash was also travelling with him and was sitting on the rear seat of the motorcycle. When they reached the Bus Stop, Gurdaspur, Om Parkash got down while Romesh Chander Singh, appellant went towards the railway station to collect the insurance premium from Murari Lal, Station Master. On his way, he met with an accident with a car which was coming from Dasuya side at a high speed. It is alleged that the car struck against the motorcycle of Romesh Chander Singh as a result of which he fell down and became unconscious He sustained injuries and his motorcycle was also damaged. The occurrence was witnessed by Chhuhar Singh and others. The appellant was removed to the railway station and from there to his house at Dasuya On the next day, he was admitted in the Civil Hospital Hoshiarpur, where he remained as an indoor patient upto July 18, 1969, and thereafter he got treatment as an outdoor petient upto December 1, 1969. The appellant filed his claim application on December 30, 1969, against the respondents for Rs. 25,000/- on account of injuries he suffered. The respondents resisted the claim application and a preliminary issue was framed whether the claim application was time barred. The learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), after going into the merits of the case, dismissed the application on the ground that it was time barred. It is against this order of the Tribunal that the appellant has come up in appeal.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I hold that the learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim application of the appellant on the question of limitation. The statement of the appellant clearly shows that he remained in the hospital as an indoor patient upto July 18, 1969, and thereafter he had been under treatment as an outdoor patient upto December 1, 1969. He stated that at the time of the accident he did not know the number of the car and he was not aware of the name of the driver and he could not know the name of the owner of the car. Mr. Maluk Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, has stated that section 110-A (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was amended by section 58 (b) of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act No. 56 of 1969), this amendment was enforced by the Government of India with effect from March 2, 1970, The limitations of filing claim applications in such cases has been now extended from 60 days to 6 months u/s 58 (b) of the aforesaid Amended Act. If the whole matter is examined in this context, the delay deserves to be condoned. It is also on the record that the appellant became unconscious and he could not regularly resume his duty upto November 30, 1969, although in between he joined only for a day or two. Having regard to all these facts, a lenient view, in my opinion, should have been taken by the Tribunal and it should not have been dismissed merely on the technical ground of limitation when a sufficient cause has been shown to justify delay whatsoever. The learned Tribunal should have accepted the statement of the appellant that he remained as an outdoor patient upto December 1, 1969. Evidence was only recorded on the point of limitation in which the appellant examined his sister Miss K.K. Sarswati and A.S.I. Shadi Lal. In rebuttal, no evidence was produced but only the first information report was produced. No doubt, in the first information report, the name of the driver and number of the car are given, but the name of the owner of the car is not given.

For the reasons recorded above, I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal dated August 4, 1971, and the Tribunal is directed to proceed with the case according to law. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on August 29, 1977. In this appeal, respondents 1 and 3 are represented. The Tribunal shall issue notice to unrepresented respondent. No costs.