SWARAN KAUR Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant's claim under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act has been dismissed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Amritsar on the ground that it was time barred. The accident was found to be the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Punjab Roadways bus involved in the accident, and the claim of Rs. 10,000/ - put forth by by the Appellant was described as reasonable. There could be no cross -appeal by the Respondent, State of Punjab, who owned the bus involved in the incident, and the findings with regard to the rash and negligent driving or the quantum of compensation have not been disputed in any cross -objection or in the arguments before me. The claimant, however, feels aggrieved against the Tribunal's failure to exercise its discretion in her favour under the proviso to Sub -section (3) of Section 110 -A of the Act.

(2.) THE Appellant was riding the pillion of her husband's bicycle when she was knocked down by the Punjab Roadways bus No. PNJ 1348 on 9th August, 1968 on the G.T. Road between Butari and Raiya near Baba Bakala. She had sustained serious injuries which had necessitated the amputation of her right arm She remained an indoor patient in a hospital at Amritsar from 9th August, 1968 to 10th September, 1968 and had to be admitted to that hospital twice again for about 4 or 5 days on each occasion during the last weeks of October 1968 and June 1969. When the accident had taken place there was no Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in existence. This tribunal had been abolished on 8th September, 1968 and was re -constituted by a Gazette Notification on 9th September, 1968.

(3.) THE only question for decision is whether the Appellant was prevented by any sufficient cause from not filing the claim in time. The proviso to Sub -section (3) of Section 110 -A of the Act under which the delay could be condoned, does not say that there should be any application in writing for the condonation of delay. There is a prescribed proforma for filing such claims, which has no column in which a claimant is expected to state the cause of delay in filing the claim. In Ramashray Singh v. Tarabati Kuer and Ors., 1968 A.C.J. 168, a Single Bench of the Patna High Court had held that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal can condone the delay in filing a claim even though there is no application in writing containing such a prayer. It was observed by the learned Judge that the proviso to Sub -section (3) of Section 110 -A of the Act casts no obligation on the claimant to make an application in writing and that the making of such an application is not a condition precedent to the exercise of the Tribunal's discretion in favour of the claimant. The Tribunal could of its own accord after being satisfied, condone the delay in filing a claim.