T. Martibai Vs. Kamal Puri and ors. - Court Judgment

S.K. Dubey, J.

1. The appellant-claimant has filed this appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against the award dated 13.11.1987 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vidisha, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1986, whereby the application of the appellant-claimant, for compensation, was rejected as barred by time.

2. The accident occurred on 27.11.1984 while the application for compensation was filed on 1.7.1986. The period for filing of the application for compensation under Section 110-A is six months. However, power has been given to the Tribunal under proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 110-A to condone delay, if sufficient cause is made out.

3. The appellant-claimant, in her application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay, assigned the reason that the claimant is a widow of the deceased and is a rural rustic and was not aware whether any application could be filed to claim compensation for the death of her husband arising out of the motor accident. Besides, she was helpless having no money to spend. Nobody guided her to file the application in time. The application was opposed. The Tribunal, having found that no sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay, had dismissed the application. Hence, this appeal.

4. Mr. A.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant, placed reliance on Sital Prasad Saxena (dead) by LRs. v. Union of India AIR 1985 SC 1; Jashodabai v. Dr. Harjitsingh 1984 MPWN Note 382, Mehar Chand Jain v. Nand Singh 1987 ACJ 189 (P&H) and Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sarman 1993 ACJ 591 (Allahabad). He contended that because of illiteracy, poverty and being a rural rustic widow, the applicant-claimant could not file the application and that constitutes the sufficient cause to condone the delay. Mr. Malhotra opposed the contention of learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and supporting the award, contended that from her it is clear that she had contacted lawyers in regard to filing the claim petition, but thereafter, did not file the application.

5. On going through the records, contents of the application and the statement of the widow, we are satisfied that the appellant-claimant had made out a sufficient cause which prevented her from filing the application for claiming compensation. Admittedly, she is a rural rustic woman and is not aware of the provisions of law. She has also stated in her statement that she was not aware whether she can even claim compensation on account of the death of her husband in a motor accident. In these circumstances, the decisions relied by Mr. Shrivastava which lay down that illiteracy, poverty and rural rusticity is a sufficient ground to condone the delay, we are of the view that the delay in the peculiar circumstances of this case deserves to be condoned and is hereby condoned.

6. However, submission of Mr. Malhotra that in case the claim application is allowed, the owner, driver and the insurer be not burdened with interest, is right. Therefore, we direct that if the Tribunal allows the application of the claimant awarding the compensation, the claimant-appellant shall not be entitled to interest for the period from 27.11.1984 till today.

7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the award of the Tribunal is set aside and the case is remitted to the Tribunal for deciding the claim afresh in accordance with law after issuing notice to the owner and driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal shall see that the case is decided expeditiously with an outer limit of six months from the date of appearance of parties. Appellant-claimant, the insurance company and the respondent are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 19.9.1994, for that no notice shall be issued to the claimant and the insurance company as they have been noticed here.

8. Let the record be sent back post-haste so as to reach in time. C.C. as per rules.