Punjab-Haryana High Court
Girdhari Lal vs Radhey Shyam And Ors. on 18 March, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1994ACJ168
JUDGMENT N.K. Kapoor, J.
1. This appeal arises out of the rejection of a claim petition instituted under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, on the ground of limitation.
2. The claimant filed a petition for compensation of Rs. 40,000/- against the respondents on the ground that he suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 and remained admitted in the hospital for a pretty long time. The accident took place on 5.6.1983 whereas the petition seeking compensation was filed on 18.5.1984. The reasons given for late submission of the claim petition as per para 22 of the claim petition are as under:
The petitioner got injured on 5.6.1983 and was admitted in the General Hospital, Narnaul, as an indoor patient that very day. The petitioner was discharged on 20.6.1983 but was instructed and directed to take bed-rest as he had been given plaster bandage. The petitioner is bedridden. It was only on 18.5.1984 that the petitioner was brought to the court of Addl. C.J.M., Narnaul, to make a statement in criminal case State v. Radhey Shyam about the said accident. On being brought to the court, the petitioner contacted Mr. Hari Mohan, Advocate, Narnaul and asked as to whether the petitioner will get compensation for the injuries in the said criminal case whereupon he was told by the said lawyer that a separate claim petition for compensation will have to be filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narnaul. Since the petitioner was not able to move about and was not aware that the claim can be filed, the petitioner is filing the petition today without any unnecessary or mala fide delay. As such the delay is liable to be condoned.
3. Notice was issued by the Tribunal to the respondents who put in appearance and filed the written statement challenging the maintainability of the petition as well as denied that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Radhey Shyam, respondent No. 1.
4. The Tribunal framed the following issues as they arose on the pleadings of the parties:
(1) Whether there is any sufficient ground to condone delay? OPP.
(2) Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle No. DLZ 6839? OPP.
(3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any amount of compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP.
(4) Whether motor cycle No. DLZ 6839 was not being driven by a person holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR.
(5) Relief.
5. Issue No. 1 was treated as preliminary. The petitioner in support of this issue appeared as PW 1 and stated on oath that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of motor cycle bearing No. DLZ 6839. On account of injuries sustained in this accident, the claimant remained as indoor patient for 15 days. He was relieved from the hospital and was advised rest. The claimant further stated that he was given plaster bandage and so remained bedridden. It is only on 18.5.1984 that he was brought to the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, to make his statement in a case titled as State v. Radhey Shyamin respect of the same accident. It is then that he consulted Mr. Hari Mohan, Advocate, Narnaul, as to whether he can be awarded compensation for the injuries so suffered by him on account of the negligent driving of Radhey Shyam and this way delay so accrued is liable to be condoned being bona fide. Tasbir Singh, claimant's son, appeared as PW 2. He supported the version given by his father, i.e., he remained in hospital for 15 days, was plastered twice for a period of 1 1/2 months on each occasion and remained confined to bed for almost 11 1/2 months.
6. By way of rebuttal, Radhey Shyam appeared as RW 1. He denied the accident. However, in his next breath he stated that Girdhari Lal, claimant, met him, asked for a compromise and demanded compensation. In fact, Girdhari Lal met him a number of times. To the similar effect is the statement of Sat Narain, RW 2.
7. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found no substance in the statement of the petitioner and his witness primarily on the ground that best evidence of the doctor as well as of the neighbour has been withheld and for this reason chose to dismiss the claim petition.
8. There is no denying the fact that the appellant suffered injuries on account of the accident and was admitted to the General Hospital, Narnaul, as an indoor patient. The fact that he was given plaster bandage on two occasions is not even remotely denied by the respondents. There is no denial that Radhey Shyam, respondent, was being tried on account of rash and negligent driving by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in a case State v. Radhey Shyam. Thus, it is prima facie safe to conclude that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Radhey Shyam, respondent, in which the claimant suffered injuries. This claim petition has been filed after the expiry of the statutory period of six months. However, under Section 110-A (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal is entitled to entertain an application after the expiry of prescribed period of six months in case it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making such an application in time. Sufficient cause is not to be construed in a manner as envisaged by Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficent legislation and a claimant otherwise entitled to compensation ought not to be deprived of the same merely on account of lapse in initiating steps within the statutory limits especially when reason assigned for the delay in lodging the claim has been satisfactorily explained by him. In the present case, the claimant has made statement on oath that he suffered injuries, was twice applied plaster bandage by the doctor and remained bedridden for a pretty long time. There is no rebuttal by the respondents to this positive assertion of the claimant. This being the position, I am of the view that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has taken rather strict view and has tried to judge the delay on the basis of the provision contained in the Limitation Act. I find the reason given by the claimant in para 22 of the claim petition quite plausible and genuine. Accordingly, I set aside the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and remand the case to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits. The claim petition pertains to the year 1984. The Tribunal is accordingly directed to expeditiously dispose of this petition preferably within six months. The parties to appear before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, on 17.5.1993. Office to inform the respective counsel for the parties of the order. No costs.