JAGAT SINGH AND ORS. Vs. SAWAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by the owners, driver and insurance company of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. The Respondent who had sustained injuries in the motor accident has been awarded a sum of Rs. 8950/ - as compensation for the injuries sustained by him.

(2.) THE accident had taken place on 11.9.1963 near village Mansar on Pathankot -Jullundur road. The Respondent was knocked down unconscious by the Appellant's truck No. PNP -1447. The truck had swerved suddenly and had been over turned at the spot and there could therefore be no dispute with regard to the identity of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. The Respondent was on foot at the time when he was knocked down and was walking on the kacha portion on the left side of the road. The truck was said to have been going at a very fast speed and on seeing the Respondent it swerved suddenly on the wrong side without blowing any horn. The road was at a higher level and the truck went down the kacha slope and over -turned because of the fast speed and the sudden braking. The truck had been over -loaded and had been braked to a stop suddenly. Jagat Singh, the driver of the the truck who kept away from the proceedings in the earliest stages, later appeared in the witness box and came out with the siory that the Respondent was looking after his cow which suddenly came on the road out of the bushes on the sides. Jagat Singh tried to avoid the cow and swerved towards the right. The Respondent was trying to drive the cow away from the road and he came in the way and was knocked down by the left mudguard of the truck. The truck was loaded with logs of wood and because the driver had to swerve suddenly to save the cow and its owner, it went down the kacha slope and over -turned. The driver's case was that the accident was not the result of any rash or negligent driving on his part.

(3.) THE first question that is agitated in this appeal is that no claim had been filed by the Respondent within the period of limitation. It may appear that the Respondent's brother, Nasib Singh, AW1, had sent a claim by registered post and that it has reached the Claims Tribunal on 11.10.63. There is nothing in this claim or in the forwarding letter dated 9.10.1963 to suggest that Nasib Singh had been duly authorised by the injured to file this claim. It is only mentioned in the forwarding letter that the claim is for compensation of bodily injuries of Sawal Singh Respondent. As it was felt that this was not proper presentation of a claim application, the Respondent sent another claim application through his brother, Chain Singh, on 18.1.1964. This application was hopelessly time barred but it was tagged on to the previous claim application sent by AW 4. It was not stated that he had been authorised by the Respondent to file the claim or that he was doing so on the Respondent's behalf. He stated that he was filing this claim on his own behalf. The claim application or the forwarding letter are also silent about any authorisation of Nasib Singh by Sawal Singh for the purposes of filing the claim. Sawal Singh had been discharged from the hospital and was going about on 27.9.1963 and the limitation period was still available to him and there is no reason why he could not himself file the claim or send it by registered post. It was not for the Tribunal to advise him on the matter and he was supposed to be vigilant in availing of the ordinary period of limitation. There is no satisfactory explanation for the delay in the filing of the claim by the Respondent. Nasib Singh cannot be taken as a duly authorised agent who could have filed the claim on the Respondent's behalf. The Respondent's counsel has relied on New India Assurance Co., Ltd., New Delhi and Anr. v. Punjab Roadways, Ambala City and Ors. Law Reporter 156 but the facts in that case were altogether different. The implied authority to file a claim was presumed because the injured in that case who was a married lady had been rendered unconscious for a number of days, Her husband had filed a claim on her behalf during the period his wife was lying unconscious and was suffering from a physical and mental incapacity to file the claim. This ruling may suggest that a well meaning relative could file a claim on the strength of his implied authority where the person injured and entitled to the compensation for the injuries was suffering from any physical, mental or legal incapacity to file that claim. In the present case Sawal Singh had been discharged from the hospital after about a fortnight of the accident and he could avail of a considerable portion of the limitation period and there was hardly any necessity for his brother to take upon himself to file the claim after the Respondent had been discharged from the hospital. In S. Karam Singh v. The Custodian of Evacuee Property, Delhi Province, AIR 1951 Sim 171 even a single day's delay was taken to be fatal when it could not be properly explained. A similar view was taken In Sitaram Ramcharan and Ors. v. M.N. Nagrashana, Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for Ahmedabad Area, Ahmedabad and Ors. : AIR 1960 S.C. 260 This appeal deserves to succeed on the simple ground that the Respondent had not filed any claim application in time either in person or through a duly authorised agent.