MARUDHU PANDIYAR TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. PERUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no representation for the respondent, even though he has been served. Heard Mr. P. Pandi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 9. 10. 1991 made in I. A. No. 273 of 1991 in unnumbered Motor Accident Claims original Petition on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal district Judge), Ramnad at Madurai, condoning the delay of 804 days in filing the claim petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) IN the instant case, the accident took place on 29. 4. 1988. The petition was filed on 11. 1. 1991 to condone the delay of 804 days. However, the Tribunal has allowed the application by applying the provisions of Sec. 6 (c) of the General Clauses Act. The order of the Tribunal, in my opinion, is contrary to law and vitiated by material irregularities. The tribunal has failed to note that the provisions of Sec. 6 (c) of the General clauses Act is not attracted in this case, in that the right or privilege to claim the benefits under a provision for condonation of delay can be governed only by the law in force at the time of filing of the petition to condone the delay, namely, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal has also failed to note that "sufficient cause" as a ground for condonation of delay in filing the claim is distinct from the "cause of action" for' ; the claim itself. The tribunal has also failed to note that the liberty to apply for the condonation of delay in filing the claim is not in itself an accrued right or privilege.