KIRAN WATI Vs. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 13. 9. 1989 given by Mr. S. S. Kanwal, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala, dismissing the claim petition filed by Kiran Wati and her two minor children, on the ground of limitation. At this stage, it may be mentioned that vide the impugned judgment, four claim petitions were decided together arising out of the same accident and compensation was awarded to the claimants in the other three petitions.

(2.) THE accident took place on December 11, 1985 between the Matador and truck. Ranbir Singh, deceased, was one of the occupants of the Matador who died on account of the accident. The present appellants, legal heirs and dependants of Ranbir Singh filed the claim petition on September 21, 1987 claiming a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- as compensation. The claim petition was contested, inter alia, on the ground of limitation and negligence. It is not necessary to reproduce the issues framed in the cases. Suffice it to say that the Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. PJQ 6139 which was driven by Hari Singh, respondent. Truck was owned by Sukhdev Singh and was insured by United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

(3.) MR. Arun Jain, learned Counsel for the appellants, has argued that the Tribunal was not justified in deciding the question of limitation against the claimants. Kiran Wati, claimant being an illiterate woman could not have access to the Tribunal. The two minor children of Kiran Wati also were unable to approach the court. As far as the minor children are concerned, the matter is covered by decision of this Court in Sukh Rani v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation 1989 ACJ 312 (Pandh), wherein it was held that minors could approach the court after their legal disability was removed, i. e. , after they had become major. This decision was based on the earlier decision of this Court in Chawli Devi v. Union of India 1973 ACJ 519 (Pandh ). The Tribunal had committed an error in deciding the question of limitation, as far as the minor claimants are concerned, as they were not to suffer on account of omission or inaction on the part of their guardian in this respect. The delay in approaching the Tribunal on behalf of the minor is condoned.