MANJULA DEVI BHUTT Vs. MANJUSRI RAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a collision between the M.P. Speedways Bus No. M.P.G. 4307 and the Bhuta Bus Service Passenger Bus No. M.P.G 4615, Satyendra Nath Raha and Uma Shanker Shastri, both of whom were travelling in the former, were killed. The Speedways Bus was going from Bhind to Gwalior. The Bhuta Bus was running in the opposite direction. The accident occurred on 10 April 1962 at about 11 a. m. near village Bidkhadi on the Gwalior-Bhind road.

(2.) THE dependants of Raha (Smt. Manjusri Raha and two others) lodged before the Claims Tribunal a claim under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the Act) for Rs. 3,00,000 against Smt. Manjula Devi Bhuta, the proprietor; Sushil Kumar, the driver; and Oriental Fire and General Assurance Co. Ltd., the insurer, of the Bhuta Bus and also against B. L. Gupta, the owner; Ram Swaroop, the driver; and the New India Insurance Co., the insurer, of the Speedways Bus. THE dependants of Shastri (Padmavati and others) likewise filed a claim for Rs. 1,20,000 against the aforesaid proprietors, drivers and insurers of the two buses. As both the claims arose from the same accident, they were tried together by Shri D. B. Pawdey, 1st Additional District Judge, Gwalior, as the Claims Tribunal constituted under section 110 of the Act.

(3.) SHRI Dube strenuously contended that the application under section 110-A of the Act, which was filed before the Tribunal by the dependants of Raha, was barred by time. The period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (3) of that section is 60 days from the date of the occurrence of the accident. The accident occurred on 10 April 1962. The application was made on 19 June 1962. On the 9th June and thereafter up to the 18th June, the civil Courts remained closed. They reopened on the 19th June after the summer vacation. The argument for the appellants is that since in the discharge of his functions as the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act the Additional District Judge is not a Court, it is of no consequence that the Court of the Additional District Judge remained closed during the period from the 9th to the 18th June. Civil Courts were closed from 7 May to 16 June 1962 by virtue of a notification of the High Court under section 21 of the M. P. Civil Courts Act, 1958. The 17th June was a Sunday and the 18th June was a general holiday. The Claims Tribunal condoned the delay on the ground that the applicants' belief that they could present the petition on the reopening of the Court was a sufficient cause within the meaning of the proviso to section 110-A of the Act. In that context, the tribunal observed thus:-