Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukh Rani And Anr. vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation ... on 14 September, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1(1989)ACC302
JUDGMENT A.L. Bahri, J.
1. The main question involved in this appeal is as to whether claim application filed Under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act on behalf of the minor claimant can be dismissed as barred by time.
2. Accident took place on October 14, 1981. Suraj Parkash was driving scooter No. CHG 3100. On the pillion seat of the scooter was seated Anil Kapoor. When they were taking a turn at the crossing of Sectors 21, 22, 34 and 35 Chandigarh, bus No. HPH 359 driven by Roshan Lal, respondent, came from the wrong side at a very high speed and hit the scooter. Anil Kapoor suffered injuries. Suraj Parkash died on account of the injuries suffered. Sukh Rani mother of Suraj Parkash and Miss Neelam minor daughter of Suraj Parkash filed claim application against Himachal Road Transport Corporation-owner and Roshan Lal-driver of the bus. This claim application was filed on September, 13, 1982. An application for condonation of delay in filing the claim application was also filed wherein it was pleaded that Sukh Rani came to know about the death of Suraj Parkash in the first week of September, 1982, when she visited Chandigarh. This application was contested by the respondents. This claim application was disposed of by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, alongwith other claim applications. However, this claim application was dismissed as barred by time. Hence this appeal by Sukh Rani and Neelam.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellants has frankly conceded that the claim application of Sukh Rani was rightly rejected as barred by time as there was no sufficient ground to condone the delay. However, the appeal is pressed with respect to the claim of Neelam minor daughter of Suraj Parkash deceased.
4. It has been argued by learned Counsel for the appellant that Neelam being minor could file claim application within the period of limitation as prescribed after attaining majority. There is force in this contention. Section 6(1) of the Limitation Act reads as under:
Where a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor or insane, or an idiot, he may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the disability has ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time specified therefor in the third column of the Schedule.
5. Section 110-A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides a period of six months for filing claim application. Since Neelam, appellant, is the minor, she could file claim application within six months of attaining majority as provided Under Section 6(1) of the Limitation Act as reproduced above. It was so held by Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Chawli Devi and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 1973 Punjab Law Reporter 848. It was observed therein that minority of the claimant could be taken into consideration as sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the claim application.
6. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is partly allowed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 300/-. The order of the Tribunal dismissing the claim application of Neelam minor is set aside. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Tribunal on October 3, 1988.