MUSTHAFALI Vs. SUBAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises a question of limitation. A minor represented by the guardian, is the appellant. The minor filed an application before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals for compensation for the injuries he sustained in a motor accident. He was represented by his next friend/guardian. Appellant Claimed Rs. 50,000/ - as compensation for the injuries he sustained. The Claim was made on different counts.

(2.) THE Tribunal after assessing the evidence in the case, determined the compensation payable to the appellant at Rs. 20,000/-. But the Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground mat the application was filed beyond the statutory period allowed for filing the Claim petition. Before us, there is no serious controversy as to the reasonableness of the quantum of compensation.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal did not consider the benign provisions contained in the Limitation Act, viz. Section 29(2) and Section 6 of the Limitation Act. The content and scope of those Sections have to be taken note of for giving substantial justice and relief to an injured minor in a motor accident. Counsel submitted that the scheme of the enactment, particularly the statutory provisions in the part of the Motor Vehicles Act which deals with compensation for injuries sustained in a motor accident comprehends a scheme which deserves a generous bountiful and open handed construction and consideration by the Court. Without giving violence to the language of the statutory provisions and without damaging the well accepted norms of construction articulated in several decisions of this Court as well as of the Supreme Court, a liberal construction of the provisions would certainly promote the intention of the legislature. In this background, counsel submitted that the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Limitation Act can be made applicable to proceedings before me Tribunal for compensation. He also contended that since the applicant is a minor and he has not attained majority when the application was filed, the delay in filing the Claim petition deserves to be condoned under the proviso to Section 110A(3) of the Act, since if a generous construction of Section 110A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act is taken, the majority of the applicant can be treated as a cause which prevented the applicant from filing the application within the time prescribed under Section 110A(3) of the Act