RAMKUMAR Vs. UMEDRAM BORA AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 110d of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by a claimant who suffered not only personal injuries in an accident on January 23, 1974, but also lost his cart, bullock and grain and whose claim for compensation has been dismissed by the Claims Tribunal, Satna, as barred by limitation.

(2.) THE brief facts either admitted or found are that on January 23, 1974, the appellant was driving his bullock cart from his village Birhooli to Satna on Simaria road, when truck No. MPA 7822 which was being driven by respondent No. 2, came from behind the cart, dashed against it and went away. It was a " hit and run " accident. The result of the accident was that one of the bullocks died, the bullock cart was smashed, 10 bags of paddy and 2 bags of wheat got scattered on the road, the second bullock and the claimant and his brother, Vijayakumar, received injuries. It appears that the report of the accident was lodged on the same date at police Chowki Kolgawa. The injured persons were sent for medical examination. The body of the dead bullock was sent for post mortem examination. The police thereafter lodged a criminal case which perhaps is still pending. The appellant filed his claim before the Tribunal on January 3, 1975. He also filed an application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit. The claim and the application for condonation of delay were both opposed by the respondents. The Tribunal in its impugned award held that no sufficient cause was made out for condoning the delay in filing the claim. The Tribunal, however, found that injuries were caused on account of an accident which was due to rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal, in fact, calculated the amount of compensation to which the claimant may be held entitled. It thought that Rs. 700 on account of waste of grains, Rs. 1,000 on account of death of bullock, Rs. 500 damage to the bullock cart and Rs. 500 for personal injuries, i. e. , a total amount of Rs. 2,700, would be sufficient compensation in the instant case. Though the Claims Tribunal held that the application was properly made on behalf of the claimant's brother, Vijay Kumar, no amount was determined payable to this Vijay Kumar due to injuries to his person. Since the delay in filing the claim has not been condoned, nothing has been awarded. Being aggrieved by this award, the claimant has approached this court by filing the present appeal.

(3.) THE only question involved in this case is whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the claim application. Since the accident had taken place on January 23, 1974, and the claim application was filed on January 3, 1975, it was admittedly barred by limitation and unless sufficient cause was made out as required by the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant cannot succeed.