Judgment:
C.L. Chaudhry, J.
1. Yad Ram was killed in an accident on 8.12.1971. His mother Kamla Devi, a widow, filed Compensation claim petition under Section 110(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 50, 000/-. It was stated in the petition that on 8.12.1971 at about 12.30 P.M. Yad Ram was going on his motor cycle No. DLX-2920 on his right side at Mathura Road towards Faridabad. When the deceased had crossed the point at which another road leads to Jaitpur, the erring vehicle (Truck No. DLG-1283) came from the opposite direction on its wrong side and hit the motor cycle of the deceased. The truck instead of proceeding to the other side of the central patri came on the wrong side of the central patri and collided against the motor cycle of the deceased. The motor cycle of the deceased was badly damaged and the deceased received serious injuries on his person, due to which he died within a period of 3/4 hours. It was pleaded that the driver of the truck was driving the vehicle most negligently and rashly. The vehicle was completely out of the control of the driver. Yad Ram was stated to be 27 years old doing contract work of painting independently. He was spending atleast Rs. 200/- per month on the maintenance of the petitioner who was 48 years old. The respondent No. 1 was driving the offending truck in the course of employment of his master. The respondents. No. 2 & 3 were the owners of the truck and respondent No. 4 was the insurer. Compensation was claimed against all the respondents jointly and severally. Respondent No. 1, Shri Munshi Ram, driver did not contest the petition.
2. In the original petition Shri Harnam Singh alleged to be the owner of the truck was arrayed as respondent No. 2 and insurance company was imp leaded as respondent No. 3. Thereafter an application was moved on behalf of Smt. Kamla Devi stating that instead of Harnam Singh, the name of Shri Jaswant Singh may be added, as in fact, he was the owner of the truck. This application was allowed by order dated 12.2.1973. Jaswant Singh filed his written statement inter alias stating that he was not liable to pay any compensation as he was neither the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident nor was respondent No. 1 his employee on the date of the accident.
3. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed on 10.7.1974:
1. Whether Shri Yad Ram sustained fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. DLG 1283 on the part of respondent No. 1?
2. Whether the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased?
3. Whether the claims application against the respondent No. 2 is barred by limitation? _
4. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled and from whom?
5. Relief.
Parties went on trial on the above said issues.
4. On 24.4.1979, claimant requested that M/s. Guru Nanak Stone Mills may be added as respondent in the case as they were the owners of the vehicle involved in the accident. By order dated 24.4.1979, the Court allowed the claimant's request and M/s. Guru Nanak stone Mills was allowed to be added as respondent No. 3. Thereafter on disclosing the name of the insurance company, M/s. New India Assurance Co. was added as respondent No. 4. Written statements were filed on behalf of M/s. Guru Nanak Stone Mills and New India Assurance Company. Additional issues were framed on 7.9.1979, which are to the following effect:
1. Whether the petition is within time against respondent No. 3?
2. Whether there are sufficient grounds for condensation of delay?
3. Whether respondents two and three were joint owners of the truck No. DLG-1283 on the date of accident?
Further additional issues were also framed on 1.7.1980 which were in the following terms:
6. Whether the petition is barred by limitation against respondents 3 and 4? If so, whether, there are any sufficient grounds for condensation of delay?
7. Whether the accident was caused due to negligence of the deceased?
8. Whether petitioner has no cause of action against respondent No. 4 and insurance company is not liable for the reasons stated in its written Statement?
Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. The tribunal by its judgment dated 14.7.1988 disposed of the petition.
5. Against Issue No. 1 framed on 10.7.1974 and on issue No. 7 framed on 1.7.1980, the Tribunal returned the finding that the accident in question resulting in the death of Yad Ram was the direct off-spring of rash and negligent driving on the part of Munshi Ram, respondent No. 1 the driver of truck No. DLG-1283 and there was no negligence on the part of Yad Ram. Issue No. 2 framed on 10.7.1974 was decided in favor of the claimant. On Issue No. 3 framed on 7.9.1979 it was held that the respondent No. 3 alone was the owner of the truck on the date of the accident. On Issue No. 1 framed on 7.9.1979 and Issue No. framed on 1.7.1980 it was held that the petition against both the respondents No. 3 & 4 was within time as there were sufficient grounds for condensation of delay. Against issue No. 3 framed on 10.7.1974 it was held that claimant had no cause of action against respondent No. 2. Against Issue No. 8 framed on 1.7.1980 it was held that the petitioner has cause of action against respondent No. 4, who is liable as insurer of truck No. DLG-1283. On Issue No. 4 framed on 10.7.1974 the finding is that the petitioner was entitled to recover the compensation at Rs. 32, 400/- jointly and severally from respondents No. 1, 3 and 4.
6. The New India Assurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal has preferred this appeal which is under disposal. The only contention that was raised before this Court was that the findings of the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 framed on 7.7.1979 and Issue No. 6 framed on 1.7.1980 were incorrect. The tribunal committed a legal error by condoning the delay in filing the petition against respondents No. 3 & 4.
7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter involved.
8. Mr. Sabharwal contended that the petitioner had been prosecuting the case in a most callous manner. It was a case of gross negligence on the part of the claimant as not to implead the respondents No. 3 & 4 within the stipulated period. No ground for condensation of delay was made out. There was inordinate delay of 8 years.
9. While returning the finding in favor of the claimant the Tribunal observed that the petitioner had been prosecuting the case in a most callous manner. The petitioner first imp leaded Harnam Singh. She later on gave up Harnam Singh and imp leaded Jaswant Singh. The trial continued till 1979 when from the record of the transport authority it is revealed that M/s. Guru Nanak S tone Mills was the owner of the truck. The petitioner would have, without any difficulty, obtained the particulars from the transport authority even before presentation of the petition in 1972 when the petitioner after giving up Harnam Singh imp leaded Jaswant Singh as the owner. The petitioner did not give up Jaswant Singh and the counsel for the petitioner instead made the statement that Jaswant Singh and respondent No. 3 were the joint owners of the vehicle. It is further observed by the Tribunal that Jaswant Singh filed the written statement in November 1972 and clearly stated that he was not the owner of the truck. He however, did not disclose as to who was the owner of the truck. No doubt the respondent No. 2 was not bound to disclose the name of the real owner but the fact remains that he was not a stranger to the owner and he knew that respondent No. 3 was the owner of the vehicle in which his own wife was one of the partners. If the petitioner was guilty of callousness in not finding the name of the owner from the relevant records of Transport Authority, non-disclosure of the name of real owner on the part of respondent No. 2 who had taken the offending truck on Supurdari was neither moral nor equitable act. The Tribunal further observed that if the petition was thrown out after a lapse of 10 years of contest on the technical ground of limitation it would tantamount to travesty of justice. If respondent No. 2 had disclosed the name of respondent No. 3 as owner and petitioner even then had failed to implead respondent No. 3, there would have been no justification to entertain the petition. It was further observed that another fact also could not be lost sight of that the claimant was an illiterate lady now on the threshold of old age and that it was not she but her lawyers who exhibited gross apathy and callousness in prosecuting her case. The punishment for that should not be given to the petitioner. In these circumstances the delay in impleading the respondent No. 3 was condoned. Regarding Insurance Co., respondent No. 4 it was observed by the Tribunal that the case of the Insurance Company stood on entirely different footing. As soon as the respondent No. 3 disclosed the name of the Insurer, the latter was imp leaded by the petitioner. The petitioner had no knowledge of insurance which the respondent No. 3 alone knew. The petition against respondent No. 4 could not, thereforee, be held as barred by time because the factum of insurance was within the personal knowledge of respondent No. 3 alone. The limitation would hit the petitioner if she knew the insurer and omitted to implead the insurance company. The delay in impleading the respondent No. 4 was thereforee condoned.
10. The contention of Mr. Sabharwal is that the Court had observed that the claimant had been prosecuting the case in a most callous manner and her lawyer also exhibited gross apathy and callousness in prosecuting the case. On these findings the delay should not have been condoned. On the other hand counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that the claimant is an illiterate lady and a widow. She should not be punished for the negligence on the part of her counsel. Otherwise it would amount to travesty of justice.
11. I have considered the relevant contentions of the parties. In my opinion the contention of Mr. Sabharwal has no merit. The Tribunal has been invested with powers under Section 110(3) of the Act to entertain the application after the expiry of the period of six months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for making the application in time. The Tribunal has exercised its discretion. I entirely agree with those findings of the Tribunal that the claimant came to know of the real owner when record from the Transport Authority was produced. Respondent No. 2, Jaswant Singh very well knew that the truck belonged to M/s. Guru Nanak S tone Mills, a partnership firm in which his wife was a partner. Jaswant Singh took the truck on supurdari from the criminal Court. The claimant was a destitute widow and an illiterate lady on the threshold of her old age and that it was not she but her lawyers who exhibited gross apathy and callousness in prosecuting her case. If the petitioner was thrown out after a lapse of 10 years of contest on the technical ground of limitation it would tantamount to travesty of justice.
12. I may add that for the victims of motor vehicle accidents who are mostly ignorant, illiterate and whose number is ever growing, it is not easy sometimes to trace and identify the vinculum Jurisdiction and find out the true owner. Parliament has, thereforee, given power to the Claims Tribunals to entertain applications for compensation even after the statutory period of six months provided that there are sufficient causes that prevented a claim being made within the period of six months.
13. The Tribunal after proper enquiry and due consideration exercised its discretion in a sound and reasonable manner. I do not want to interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter. I see no ground to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal in condoning the delay in impleading the respondents No. 3 & 4. The finding on this aspect is affirmed. No other point was canvassed before me.
14. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
15. The claimant respondent No. 1 has also filed cross-objections being CM. No. 607/1983. By these cross-objections it is claimed that the Tribunal should have awarded a sum of Rs. 50, 000/- as compensation to the claimant and the claimant was also entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition. I have considered the cross-objections and have heard the learned Counsel for the claimant. It is stated that the income of the deceased should have been taken at Rs. 400/- per month and not Rs. 300/- per month. I see no force in this contention. The tribunal has awarded the amount after taking into consideration the entire circumstances. It was stated in the petition that the deceased was spending Rs. 200/- per month on the maintenance of the petitioner. The tribunal has taken into consideration the amount of Rs. 200/- as alleged by the claimant. I see no force in this contention of the learned Counsel for the claimant. The other contention that the petitioner should have been allowed interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the petition, is also devoid of force. The petition remained pending for a sufficiently long time. Because of certain acts of omission and commission oh the part of the claimant the real owner was imp leaded by the claimant after a long time. In the facts and circumstances of the case I do not think that the claimant is entitled to the interest from the date of filing of the petition. The cross-objections are devoid of merit and are dismissed.