BHADU Vs. SATISH NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a claimant's appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order dated 8-12-1995 passed by the Additional District Judge (MACT), Dindori in Claim Case No. 3/93 by which the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition holding it to be barred by limitation.

(2.) IN brief, the facts are on 8-5-1992 Brahaspatiabai mother of the appellants was dashed by a motor cycle bearing registration No. MUJ 4727 as a result of which she died on the spot. The misfortune of the appellants continued further as their father was murdered within few days after the accidental death of their mother. The appellants being minor filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'act') on 11-2-1993 through their uncle Dodal Singh seeking compensation for the death of their mother. The claim petition was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the claim petition. The Claims Tribunal after hearing the parties rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition and consequently the claim petition was dismissed holding it to be barred by limitation.

(3.) SHRI Pradeep Naolekar, learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the view taken by the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition holding it to be barred by limitation is not sustainable in law. He placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in case of Dhannalal v. D. P. Vijayvargiya [1997 (1) MPLJ 195] and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma and Anr. [ (2003) 7 SCC 713]. On the other hand Shri Sunil Jain, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri N. S. Ruprah, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 supported the impugned order.