Sadaram Vs. Akay Kumar

.....article 227 of the constitution of india. it would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single judge. the pleadings also assume immense significance. it would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of articles 226 and 227 of the constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. in this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that article 226 of the constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. it will depend upon factual matrix of each case. dr. jaidev siddha v. jaiprakash siddha, 2007(2) mpjr (fb) 361: air 2007 mp 269 (fb) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of slp preferred against order reported in rama and company v. state of madhya pradesh [2007 (2) mpjr 229 (db) (mp)]. - act, 1988 lays down that the claims tribunal may entertain an application after expiry of the period of six months but not later than twelve months, if it is satisfied that applicant 6. from the impugned order it appears that the applicant was admitted in district hospital, bilaspur for his treatment for a month thereafter he undergone his treatment at the house of his daughter. 7. it is well settled that motor vehicles act is a piece of welfare legislation......of the limitation act for condonation of delay in filing the claim case after the expiry of the statutory period of six months. on the ground that he was ignorant of provisions of limitation in filing the claim case.4. the learned claims tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay holding that the ignorance of law is not excuse and sufficient cause was not made out for condonation of delay in absence of any medical certificate filed with the limitation petition.5. proviso to sub-section (3) of section 166 of the m.v. act, 1988 lays down that the claims tribunal may entertain an application after expiry of the period of six months but not later than twelve months, if it is satisfied that applicant6. from the impugned order it appears that the applicant was admitted in district hospital, bilaspur for his treatment for a month thereafter he undergone his treatment at the house of his daughter. the application for condonation of delay was supported by an affidavit. therefore, there was no justification for the trial court to disbelieve the statement of the applicant that no sufficient reason has been shown for condonation of delay in filing the claim case.7. it is well settled that motor vehicles act is a piece of welfare legislation. the court is, therefore, required to take a sympathic and leient view in accident case for grant of relief to the victim.8. admittedly, in the instant case the claim case has been filed within a year as per proviso of sub-section (3) of section 166 of the m.v. act, 1988. the impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. accordingly it is set aside and in the result the revision is allowed. the case is remanded back to the claims tribunal to proceed in accordance with law.