RAMESH CHAND KAPUR Vs. S GURDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissing the application of the appellant for compensation on the ground of limitation.

(2.) On 10th November, 1962 at about 10 P.M. the appellent was injured in an accident with taxi no. DLT-1031. This taxi was driven by Gurdip Singh, respondent no. 1 and was owned by Sher Singh respondent no. 2 and was in ured with respondent no. 3. It is alleged that Gurdip Singh, respondent was driving the taxi in the course of his employment with respondent no. 2 and at the time of accident, he was rash and negligent in driving the taxi. On 10th January, 1963 the appellant made an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming rupees ten thousand from the respondents by way of compensation. The appellant also made an application for con- donation of delay under sub-section of Section 110-A. It was alleged that the petitioner had sustained a compound fracture of the right thigh, bone besides. the injury on right knee and was admitted to the Irwin Hospital. Since father of the appellant, who was out of Delhi, came back on knowing the accident and he took necessary steps to make the application for compensation, it was. prayed that the delay of two days be condoned. On the pleadings of the parties, a preliminary issue was framed which was to the following effect : " Whether the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time ?" The Tribunal found that the father of the appellant had reached Delhi on 7th or 8th of January, 1963 and that the appellant had failed to explain as to what prevented his father from filing the claim on 7th or 8th or 9th of January, 1963. He also found that the petitioner could have made the application within time through his father's nephew. He thus concluded that there was negligence and in-action on the part of the appellant and therefore refused to condone the delay and dismissed the application for compensation as barred by time.

(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was not disputed by the respondents that the appellant remained in hospital from 10th November, 1962 to 3rd April, 1963. While in the hospital the appellant was being looked after by one of his cousins Pran Nath, who had informed the appellant's father about the accident. The father had reached Delhi on 7th or 8th of January, 1963 and had contacted the advocate who advised him to make the necessary application. In these circumstances, there was no negligence or in-action on the part of the appellant He also contends that the learned Tribunal was wrong in expecting the appellant to show what prevented his father from filing the complaint on 7th, 8th or 9th January, 1963.