LAWS(P&H)-1984-7-62

JAGDISH CHAND SHARMA Vs. RAM KALI

Decided On July 11, 1984
JAGDISH CHAND SHARMA Appellant
V/S
RAM KALI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge here is to the Award of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the claimant Smt. Ram Kali for the injuries suffered be her when she was run over by the truck HRC 5468.

(2.) THE accident here occurred on October 17, 1977 at about 5.30 P.M. Smt. Ram Kali was sitting near a cobbler, opposite the Civil Hospital, Palwal, when the truck came and ran her over. As a result of the injuries sustained by Smt. Ram Kali, both her legs had to be amputated. The amount claimed and awarded as compensation for these injuries was Rs. 10,000/-. The finding of negligence warrants no interference in appeal. Counsel for the appellant, truck owner could point to no material on record, on the basis of which this finding could in any manner be questioned. It stands established from the! material on record that the truck went off the road and ran over Smt. Ram Kali, who was sitting on the Kacha portion thereof.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant sought to contend that the claim against the truck owner was barred by limitation. He referred here to the fact that in the claim application as originally filed, the owner of the truck was shown to be Ram Chander Sharma, whereas the owner, in fact, was his son, the present appellant Jagdish Chand Sharma. Further the number of the truck mentioned in the claim application then was HRC--5468; whereas it was, infact, HRC--5468. These errors were corrected in the amended claim application which was filed on August, 1, 1978. The argument raised being that by this date, that is, August, 1, 1978 the period of limitation had expired and thus the claim against the truck owner was not maintainable. This is indeed, a contention which does not deserve acceptance. The provisions of Motor Vehicles Act governing this matter are to be liberally construed in the interest of substantial justice. The Tribunal rightly condoned the delay in giving the correct particulars of the truck and its owner. Limitation cannot, therefore, be held as a bar against the claimant.