RAJU NARAYAN Vs. CHOGALAL BHAGIRATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appellant was knocked down by the motor car owned by respondent No. 1 and driven at that time by respondent No. 2. Probably because the appellant was unable to find put whether or not the vehicle had been insured against third-party claims he has not impleaded any insurance company. The Motor Accidents Claims tribunal to which this case is going back may. it is suggested, usefully investigate whether the vehicle had been insured, and if it has not been whether any action is called for against the owner; but that is another matter.

(2.) THE accident was on 17-2-1964 and the claim was presented before the tribunal on 8-5-1964, in other words, after 80 days. Since, however, only 60 days are allowed, the tribunal held that the claim was time barred. Certainly the claimant wanted condonation of the delay for "sufficient" cause which the Motor Vehicles Act itself has envisaged by providing that the time limit could be relaxed where the tribunal is satisfied of sufficient cause.

(3.) THE applicant's own account of the happening is as follows : He usually lives at mhow and was knocked down on the Mhow-Indore road on 17-2-1964. He became unconscious but a police officer who was passing that way got him removed to the hospital and had also made a report at the police station. He was at the first instance treated in the Indore M. Y. Hospital and put in plaster, When it was found there was no immediate danger to his life he was at his own request removed to the Mhow hospital as his master who lives there had moved in the matter and was in a position to look after him while at Indore he seems to have had no friend. Any way, at the Mhow hospital he was detained till 1-5-1964 and then discharged now permanently disabled as he states in one of his less. On 8-5-1964 one week after his discharge from the hospital and as already noted, 80 days after the accident he presented his claim. At this stage we are not concerned with the merits because the application has been rejected for limitation, the tribunal holding there was no sufficient cause for the condonation of delay.