SHASI NAYAK Vs. NISHA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claim of the appellants claiming compensation under S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, 'Act') which was turned down by the learned Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Southern Division, Berhampur (in short, the 'Tribunal') is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal.

(2.) A detailed reference to the factual aspect is unnecessary as the fate of present appeal would depend on acceptance of the conclusion about belated approach for compensation. It needs to be pointed out here that earlier a claim was made before the Tribunal, which was dismissed for default. An application for restoration of the claim application was also dismissed for default. A fresh application which was subject-matter of consideration before the Tribunal was later on filed. Tribunal rejected the petition on the ground that there was no scope for condoning the delay beyond the period of one year in terms of S. 166(3) of the Act.

(3.) According to learned counsel for appellants a too technical view should not be taken in respect of a claim made by dependants of an unfortunate victim, who lost his life in an automobile accident. It is submitted that the appellants propose to move an application for restoration of application dismissed earlier, and on the same being accepted, the present application would be infructuous. It is stated that the amendment application to the second claim application when the original claim application was filed within the prescribed time. The learned counsel for respondents on the other hand supported the view of Tribunal.