BISHAN DASS Vs. RAMASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in this petition is as to the meaning and scope of section 7 of the Limitation Act, 1563, with reference to the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

(2.) On September 12, 1965, at about 5. 45 P. M. one Mr. Dalpat Singh, while travelling in a passenger bus, fell down and was run over under the rear wheel of the bus due to the alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The deceased left two minor sons Ramesh and Banchhu aged 8 years and 5 years respectively and a widow. On April 22, 1966, the two minor sons filed an application under section 110- A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against Bishan Dass driver of the bus and Messrs Safety Bus Service (P) Ltd. Sub-section (3) of section 110-A provided that no application for compensation under this section shall be entertained unless it was made within sixty days of the occurrence of the accident with proviso that the Claims Tribunal may entertain it if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application within time. In answer to the claim, the respondents contended that it was barred by time. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed a preliminary issue on the question of limitation and by the impugned order dated November 21, 1966, decided it in favour of the claimants as according to the Tribunal there was sufficient cause within the meaning of this proviso. This revision is directed against this order.

(3.) In order to bring the case within the proviso to sub-section (3) of the section 110-A the petitioners pleaded :