DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. AMARJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In an accident caused by D.T.C. bus No. DLP 102 on 15.7.1974 the claimant-respondent, Amarjit Kaur, received serious multiple injuries, including fracture of her left leg. She had to undergo seven operations by the time the petition was heard and her left lee was shortened by 1? inches. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 20,250.00 as compensation. The D.T.C. has filed this appeal, being F.A.O. No. 53 of 1981, against the said award. The claimant has filed the cross-objection, being C.M. No. 986 of 1981, claiming Rs. 5.00 lakhs as compensation.

(2.) The case of the claimant is that when she, along with her friends, was standing near the bus stop, the bus in question came from behind at high speed and knocked her, causing grievous injuries suffered by her. Public witness 1 is an eye-witness who has supported the claimant's version. In the written statement the D.T.C. had contended that the claimant suffered injuries when she slipped while boarding the running bus and got struck against the payement. However, in their oral evidence the driver and the conductor of the bus changed the version and stated that with a view to board the bus the claimant was crossing the iron railing fixed on the footpath and that the iron railing pierced through her thigh and she fell down on the footpath. The Tribunal found that the evidence of the eye-witness and that of the claimant was quite truthful, while that of the D.T.C. was wholly unreliable and untrustworthy. I have been taken through the evidence and I am in entire agreement with the Tribunal in its appreciation of the evidence. I also agree with the Tribunal that it was the rash and negligent driving of bus No. DLP 102 which caused the accident and injury to the claimant.

(3.) Counsel for the D.T.C. has, however, submitted that the claim petition was delayed by four months and was, therefore, not maintainable. He submits that the claimant has not shown sufficient cause, within the meaning of section 110-A (3). The Tribunal found the plea of limitation untenable. The Tribunal held that considering the injuries received by the claimant there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay. It is an admitted fact that the claimant was operated and was being treated in three different government hospitals from time to time. She had undergone seven operations and was required to visit the hospital almost daily. She has explained in her application for condonation of delay that due to her frequent visits to hospitals she could not collect the necessary material for filing the claim petition. I find that the explanation is eminently convincing and the Tribunal was right in rejecting the plea of limitation raised on behalf of D.T.C.