ASA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal in short) Mahasu District, on account of the death of Shri Manjeet Singh in a jeep accident. The same was, however, dismissed by the aforesaid Tribunal on 25-7-1969. It was stated in the application that Manjeet Singh, aged 22 years, son of Asa Singh appellant and the brother of other petitioners/appellants was employed as a Sectional Officer in the Public Works Department of Himachal Pradesh, and at the time of the accident he was working in Gaura section of Ram-pur Bushahar. On 7-12-1967, he boarded jeep HIM-2458 belonging to the Rampur Division of the Public Works Department bound for Pachhada on Rampur Gaura road which was carrying diesel to the work site. The deceased was travelling in that jeep and was going on duty. At about 5 P. M. the jeep met with an accident at a place 4 miles and one furlong from the starting point of Rampur Gaura Road. The jeep rolled down some 500 feet m the nailah and Manjeet Singh died at the spot. It was averred that the driver of the jeep drove the jeep negligently as a result of which the front wheel of the jeep collided with a hillock and the rear wheel went out of the road. The driver lost control over the vehicle and the jeep ultimately fell into the nailah. The appellants filed a claim petition claiming Rs. 50,000 as compensation from the respondents on account of the death of Manjeet Singh.

(2.) The claim of the appellants was opposed on numerous grounds. One of the grounds was that the application was barred by limitation as the same was filed after sixty days. The appellants had also filed a separate application purporting to be under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay, mainly on the ground that he could not tile the petition within time due to his ill health. The Tribunal, however, held that the applicant had been negligent in filing the claim petition and no sufficient cause had been shown to condone the delay. Accordingly, the claim petition was held time barred. It was, however, found that the application was maintainable under the Motor Vehicles Act. It was also found by the Tribunal that Manjeet Singh was on duty when the jeep met with the accident.

(3.) Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the appellants preferred an appeal before this Court. It was contended by the appellants that the Tribunal had erred in holding that there was no sufficient cause proved for condoning the delay. It was also contended that the Tribunal failed to take notice of the fact that there were four minors and the provisions for payment of compensation in the Motor Vehicles Act had been made to protect the interests of aggrieved persons and the courts have to take a liberal view while construing the provisions of such Act. It was also contended that there was sufficient material on record to show that the petition could not be filed within time due to sufficient cause. The learned Judge, however, after considering the case law on the point, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the claim petition was barred by limitation.