SHAKUNTLA Vs. KRIPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the claimants-appellants, out of whom claimant-appellant Nos. 2 to 8 are minors and the remaining appellant No. 1 is their mother under whose guardianship they had filed their claim and this appeal, assail validity of the order dated 16.3.94 passed by the District Judge, Bijnor which reads thus: Today this motor accident claim has been put up. Heard the counsel for the claimant. It is ordered that as the claim is beyond the period it stands rejected. (Translation from Vernacular)

(2.) No one appears on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellants made two-fold submissions: (i) The impugned order is not a speaking order. (ii) The submissions made before the learned District Judge that the claim of the minor claimants could not be rejected as they were entitled for extension of time even on the ground of their minority and the ratio laid down by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Vijay Gopal v. Nanak 1981 ACJ 529 (Allahabad), not having been considered, the case be remitted back.