BHASKAR BHIKAJI THAKUR Vs. CHHOTELAL RAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner has preferred a claim under Sec. 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur (Respondent No. 4). As the application was beyond 60 days of the occurrence of accident, the Petitioner has also applied for condonation of delay. The Respondent No. 4, before deciding the question of condonation of delay, desired to issue notice to the opposite party to show cause why the delay should not be condoned. The Petitioner objected to this procedure on the ground that the question of condonation of delay was a matter between the Petitioner and the Claims Tribunal and that the opposite party had no say in the matter. That objection was overruled by the Respondent No. 4 by its order dated the 21st December 1964, and notices have been issued to the opposite party. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the above -said order.

(2.) In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties it is necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Sub -section (3) of Sec. 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that no application for compensation under this Sec. shall be entertained unless it is made within sixty days of the occurrence of the accident. The proviso to the said Sub -section says that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for making the application in time. Both in Sub -section (3) and the proviso thereunder it may be noted that the expression used is "entertain". Under Sec. 110 -B, on receipt of an application for compensation made under Sec. 110 -A, the Claims Tribunal after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, is required to hold an inquiry into the claim and is authorised to make an award determining the amount of compensation. Sec. 110 -C provides that in holding any inquiry into the claim under Sec. 110 -B, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. The State Government has framed rules styled as Madhya Pradesh Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1958. The relevant rules are Rules 5, 6 and 7 which are extracted below:

(3.) The contention of Mr. J.V. Jakatdar learned Counsel of the Petitioner, is that before notice is issued under Rule 7 to the opposite party' it is the duty of the Claims Tribunal under rules 5 or 6 to determine as to whether the claim has been made within the time prescribed under Sub -Section 3 of Sec. 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act and whether the claim is otherwise competent and that a prima facie case has been made out. The authority to decide as to whether the claim is within time or not also includes the authority to decide whether the delay should be condoned. Mr. Jakatdar urges that till the stage the Claims Tribunal decides the matter envisaged under rules 5 and 6 the opposite party does not come in the picture and the matter is one between the Petitioner and the Claims Tribunal. Mr. Jakatdar has sought support for this proposition from the decision of the Supreme Court in Dinabandhu Sahu v/s. Jadumoni Mangaraj and Ors., A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 411: : (1955) 1 S.C.R. 140 and from the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Shib Krishna v/s. Panchanana Ganguli : A.I.R. 1961 Cal. 346 : 95 Cal. W.N. 576.