CHIEF ENGINEER Vs. BHANUMATI MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 tin short 'the Act'). The registered owner of the motor vehicle ORK 2494, a jeep and its driver are the appellants. Claimants have also preferred cross -objection for enhancement of the compensation awarded.

(2.) LAXMIDHAR Misra, a Sub -Assistant Engineer of the State Government breathed his last on 4 -9 -1975 on account of the accident of the motor vehicle ORK 2494 belonging to the State Government while travelling from Talcher to Bhubaneswar on duty. His date of birth being 20 -9 -1942, he would have reached the age of superannuation on 20.9.2000 and would have been thus relieved on retirement on 30.9.2000. His widow, aged 31 years and three minor daughters aged about 12, 11 and 1 year and minor son aged 5 years claimed two lakhs rupees under Section 110 -A of the Act which has been slashed down to Rs. 67,196/ - by the Tribunal.

(3.) THE claim application having been preferred on 25 -9 -1976, one year after, the non -maintainability of the same was one of the grounds before the Tribunal. The objection was not entertained on the ground that the delay had already been condoned. It was wrong in law. When delay is condoned ex pane before notice to the opposite parties, the question can be reagitated by the opposite parties, after appearance.See Hemalata Devi v. Sk. Lokman and Ors. 39 (1973) CLT 539 and Belpahar Refractories Limited v. State of Orissa (1971) 28 STC 720. This question, however, would be of no assistance to the appellants since no new facts were brought by them to contradict the facts based on which delay was condoned by the Tribunal ex parte. Moreover, the question of delay in an application under Section 110 -A of the Act is to be considered liberally. It will be more liberal than the standard of judging sufficient cause for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. See Hemalata Devi v. Sk. Lokman and Ors. (supra) and Brahmananda Sahu and Anr. v. Halla Khanda and Anr. 51(1981) CLT 379. The appellants should not have raised the plea to defeat the claim of the helpless claimants who have lost their bread -earner. Supreme Court could not appreciate such a plea by a public body like Port Trust of Bombay. It observed in the decision reported in The Trustees of Port of Bombay v. The Premier Automobiles Limited and Anr. : [1974]3SCR397 .Public bodies should resist the temptation to take technical pleas, defeat honest claims by legally permissible put marginally unjust contention, including narrow limitation..