IMPORTANT POINT
Claims under the Motor Vehicles Act must be filed within a reasonable time, even if no specific limitation is prescribed, especially when prior settlements exist.

JUDGMENT :

B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Solomon Raju Manchala, learned Standing Counsel for respondent/APSRTC.

2. The appeal directed by the claimants against the order dated 31.07.2008 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 935/2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Judge, Guntur.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the learned Tribunal.

4. The claimants filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal U/s. 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- for the death of Muthakana Suramma @ Swarna (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’) in a motor accident occurred on 25.02.1992 near Pedavadlapudi village.

5. The case of the claimants is that the claimants are the children of the deceased Muthakana Suramma @ Swarna; the deceased was aged about 50 years, and earning Rs.100/- per day by working as labourer and maintaining her dependants; On 25.02.1992 at about 10.00 a.m. the deceased and others were proceeding in a rickshaw on left side of road margin, APSRTC bus bearing No. AEZ 5832 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction towards wrong side and dashed against the rickshaw near Pedavadlapudi village; Consequently, the deceased and others sustained grievous injuries; The deceased died on the same day. Mangalagiri Rural Police registered a case against the driver of APSRTC bus; Due to the death of deceased, the claimants lost her love and affection and also care and financial support; The respondent being the owner of the bus is liable to pay compensation; After accident, the officials of respondent approached the claimants and paid Rs.40,000/- to the father of the claimants towards exgratia relief; The claimants are entitled for higher compensation, but the respondent/APSRTC did not pay the same.

6. The respondent filed written statement, while traversing with the material averments with regard to manner of accident; rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle; nature of injuries; age and avocation of the deceased; liability to pay compensation and contended that the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus and it was occurred due to sheer negligence of rickshaw puller and the claim is highly exorbitant; and the claimants are not entitled for any amount.

7. Basing on the above pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the deceased died in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No. AEZ 5832?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what would be the just amount of compensation that the petitioners would be entitled and against whom?

3. To what relief?

8. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined as PWs. 1 and 2 and four documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-4 respectively. On behalf of the respondent/APSRTC, RW-1 was examined and six documents were marked as Exs.B-1 to B-6.

9. The learned Tribunal basing on the evidence placed before it, held on issue No. 1 that the accident was occurred due to fault of the APSRTC bus driver.

10. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence placed before it, on issue No. 2 held that the petition is not maintainable and dismissed the petition without costs.

11. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the point of limitation that the accident was occurred in the year 1992, and the claim petition is filed in the year 2007, and there is no reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the claim petition.

12. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing claim petition and therefore, the order of the learned Tribunal is erroneous in law.

13. The learned Standing Couns