HOSHIAR SINGH Vs. MOHINDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, which by its order dated 6th October, 1966, refused to entertain the application of Hoshiar Singh Appellant on the ground that there was inordinate delay in filing of the claim and that no sufficient cause had been shown for condoning the delay. The facts as may be necessary for the disposal of this appeal are stated as under:

(2.) HOSHIAR Singh, foot constable, was injured as a result of Car No. PNU -5502, having collided against him on 2nd May, 1965 on the road between Bajwara and Secretariat in Chandigarh. It is alleged that the car was being driven rashly and negligently. The Appellant received serious injuries including fractures of the right thigh, right arm and back bone. The skull was also fractured and so was his jaw. He remained as indoor patient in the General Hospital, Sector 16, upto 31st August, 1965, after which he continued on medical leave and joined duty on 25th October, 1965, almost after five months. The present claim application filed on 3rd May, 1966, was dismissed as time barred, and hence the present appeal.

(3.) AFTER hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal did not discharge its judicial functions properly and grossly erred in refusing to examine Mr. Ram Mehar whose evidence was not only relevant but also very important. Hoshiar Singh made a statement which he wanted to corroborate by the testimony of Mr. Ram Mehar, but the Tribunal just in a very perverse manner declined to record his statement. It is quite possible that if that witness had been examined he might have impressed the Tribunal as a true witness and if he had supported the statement of the Appellant, there might have been a good cause for condoning the delay. It is not normally conceivable that an injured person like the Appellant who is entitled to compensation would sit over his rights and let the limitation period pass. The Appellant has stated on oath before the Tribunal that he handed over the case to Mr. Ram Mehar who was instructed to engage a counsel. If he really had engaged a counsel who proceeded to England without filing the claim, the fault may be of the counsel for which the Appellant should not be made to suffer. These are all matters which could be properly assessed if Mr. Ram Mehar was allowed to be examined.