KULBIR CHAND Vs. BAHADUR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Motor Accidents' Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act (Act 14 of 1939). On May 20, 1957, one Kuldip Kumar who was riding a bicycle was knocked down by the respondent Gulzar Singh driver as a result of which he received injuries and eventually died On May 19, 1958, Kulbir Chand, Bharat Bhushan, Varinder Kumar, Surinder Kumar, brothers of the deceased and Nirmal Kumari and Subhas Kumari sisters of the deceased who are appellants in this appeal lodged a claim with the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for recovery of a sum of Rs. 50,000/ against the owners of the truck, its driver and the Insurance Company where the truck was insured. The respondent resisted the claim and amongst others it was pleaded that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the application and that the applicants also did not have locus standii to file the application for compensation under the Act. On the pleadings before him the Tribunal framed the following preliminary issues :

(2.) Issue No. 2 was not pressed at the time of arguments. After hearing the parties the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellants had failed to establish a sufficient cause for condonation of delay and as the application had not been made within 60 days from the date of the accident, it was barred by time. Under issue No. 3, it was held that the appellants were not the legal representatives of the deceased within the meaning of section 110 -A, clause (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act and were, therefore, not entitled to claim compensation under the Act. With these findings, he dismissed the application.

(3.) Mr. V.D. Mahajan, appearing on behalf of the appellants has strongly assailed both these findings of the Tribunal. He contended that on the day when the accident took place there was no Tribunal in Delhi constituted under section 110 of the Act. It came into existence only on the 24th October, 1957. As such he maintained that no claim in respect of this accident could be filed before the Tribunal. He further submitted that period of limitation for filing a suit for recovery of damages suffered as a result of the accident was one year commencing from the date of the accident and this was a vested right and could not be taken away by a change in law curtailing the period of limitation for such actions.