SHANTILAL Vs. AZAD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIMANT is in appeal against the rejection of his claim petition filed for claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act arising out of an accident. The learned Member of M.A.C.T. rejected the claim petition on the ground of limitation, as in his opinion, the same having been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, it is liable to be dismissed. It was accordingly dismissed. The cause pleaded by the claimant did not appeal to learned Member.

(2.) HEARD Mr. S.S. Kemkar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.V. Dandwate, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3.

(3.) TRUE it is, that when the accident occurred in this case on 20.5.1990, the Act did provide for limitation and hence, it governed the limitation for filing the claim petition. Equally true is, by amendment the rigour of limitation was lifted making the Act more liberal keeping in view its benevolent provisions and object. However, in our opinion, though the delay is of five years and few months yet, in a case of accident and looking to the illiteracy of claimant and ignorance of such provisions, the claim petition ought to have been entertained on merits for its disposal.