Milap Chandra, J.
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 110-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act') against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated February 2, 1985 by which it dismissed the claim petition on the ground of limitation. The facts of the case giving rise to the appeal may be summarised thus.
2. On July 7, 1980 (Monday), the appellant filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Act claiming Rs. 55,000/- as compensation with the allegation in short, that on January 6, 1980 at about 5.30 p.m. he was going to church situated near Head Telegraph Office, Jodhpur. His wife Aliumma was sitting on the back seat of his cycle. While he was going on the correct side of the Bhairav Bagh Road, bus No. RRM 293 came from the side of the Dak Bungalow. It was being driven with excessive speed and rashly and negligently by its driver Megh Singh (respondent No. 2). It dashed against him. As a result thereof, he and his wife fell down and received several injuries. Both were admitted in the Military Hospital. The respondents admitted in their separate replies that the said bus No. RRM 293 belonged to the respondent No. 1, it was being driven by respondent No. 2 Megh Singh at the relevant time and the appellant was coming from the opposite direction on his cycle, his wife was sitting at its back seat and accident took place. The remaining allegations of the petition were denied. It has further been averred that the petitioner and his wife were busy in talking with each other, as such the petitioner could not see the bus coming from the front side and he himself dashed against it. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, learned Tribunal held that the accident took place at about 5.30 p.m. on 6.1.1980 near the Head Telegraph Office, Jodhpur; in this accident the appellant and his wife Aliumma received injuries; this accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver Megh Singh (respondent No. 2); and both the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 8,000/- each as compensation. It further held that the claim petition was not filed within six months of the accident, it was filed after one day of the expiry of the period of limitation and accordingly dismissed it on this ground.
3. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal has seriously erred in holding that the claim petition was not filed within limitation. He further contended that the accident took place on January 6, 1980, claim petition was filed on July 7, 1980, July 6, 1980 was Sunday and the date of the accident and Sunday falling on July 6, 1980 have to be excluded while counting the period of limitation. He also contended that the amount of compensation of Rs. 8,000/- awarded to the appellant is quite inadequate and it should be enhanced.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents duly supported the award.
5. Admittedly, accident took place on January 6, 1980, the claim petition was filed on July 7, 1980 and July 6, 1980 was Sunday. The question for consideration is whether 6th January, 1980, the date on which the accident took place, has to be excluded while counting the period of limitation or not. According to the provisions of Section 9, General Clauses Act, it has to be excluded, 6th July, 1980 has also to be excluded under Section 10 of the General Clauses Act being Sunday. After excluding 6th January and 6th July, 1980, the claim petition is within limitation.
6. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Sub-section (3) of Section 110-A of the Act provides that no application for compensation shall be entertained under Section 110-A of the Act, unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident. The provisions of Section 12(1), Limitation Act, 1963 will also apply in view of the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act as admittedly there is no provision to its contrary in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It is clearly provided in Section 12(1), Limitation Act, 1963 that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned, shall be excluded. 6th July, 1980 has also to be excluded under Section 4 of the Limitation Act as admittedly it was Sunday and the Tribunal was closed on that day.
7. It has been observed in Mohim Chandra Chakravarty v. National Transport (India) Pvt. Ltd. 1972 ACJ 138 (Assam & Nagaland), as follows (para 3):
The short point that arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to the exclusion of the date on which the accident occurred under Section 12(1) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. It is true, the Motor Vehicles Act under Section 110-A (3) provides for limitation of sixty days. There is, however, no limitation provided for under the Limitation Act. That is to say, the Limitation Act omits to provide limitation for a claim of this nature and that is specifically provided in the special law, namely, the Motor Vehicles Act. The Supreme Court while dealing with this point in the case of Vidyacharan Shukla v. Khubchand Baghel AIR 1964 SC 1099, following an earlier decision of the same court in Kaushalya Rani v. Gopal Singh AIR 1964 SC 260, held that even if there is an omission in the Limitation Act in providing a period of limitation which a special law provides for, such provision in the special law is different from that provided for in the Limitation Act. That being the position, Section 29(2)(a) of the Limitation Act applies in the instant case, and by virtue of that provision, since Section 12 is not expressly excluded in the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is entitled to the exclusion of the date of the occurrence, namely, 21.9.1962, under Section 12 (1) of the Limitation Act. In that view of the matter, the claim application is within time. The order of the Tribunal dismissing the claim application on the ground of limitation is, therefore, erroneous and that is set aside. The Tribunal wrongly refused to entertain and adjudicate the claim.
8. Thus, the claim petition was within limitation. In view of these provisions of law, it is very difficult to endorse the view of the learned Tribunal.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the amount of Rs. 8,000/-awarded as compensation is quite inadequate. There exists no good ground for the enhancement of the amount of compensation. Learned Tribunal has observed in its judgment that no satisfactory evidence has been produced by the appellant for the award of higher compensation. It is not in dispute that the appellant received three injuries and on X-ray examination, only 1 rib was found fractured. Under these facts and circumstances, there exists no good ground for the enhancement of the amount of compensation.
10. Consequently, the appeal is allowed with costs, the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur dated February 2, 1985 is set aside, the claim petition is allowed with costs and the compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- is awarded to the appellant with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from 7th July, 1980 to the date of realization. The respondent will make payment to the claimant Sargent Jone through A/c payee demand draft in his name. If the demand draft of the entire amount of compensation, costs and interest is given within three months from today, the respondent will get rebate by way of reduction in the rate of interest. In that case interest would be calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.