1979 Supreme(Bom) 84
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(Nagpur bench)
Pratap S.C., J.
Ashabaj Wd /0 Dattatraya Karambelkar.... Appellant.
Versus
Ramkumaribai Gupta And Another .... Opponents.
Civil Revn. Appln. No. 483/1979, D /- 7-12-1979 from the order of N. M. Kulkarni, President Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagpur dated
7-4-1979 in Claim Petition No. 12 of 1978.
Advocates appeared:
P.A. Halve, for applicant.
G.S. Padhye, for opponent No. 2.
Delay in filing a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 can be condoned if the applicant can show that there was a reasonable cause for the delay.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 110A(3) - DELAY IN FILING CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION - CONDONATION - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - SUPREME COURT GUIDELINES.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner Ashabai's husband Dattatraya was killed in a motor vehicle accident on 9th April 1977. She filed a claim for compensation on 1st November 1977, after the establishment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected her application for condonation of delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the delay in filing the claim was not due to utter negligence or contumacious conduct on the part of the petitioner. It also considered the fact that the petitioner was a widow who had suffered a severe mental shock due to her husband's death and that she was not aware of her legal rights.
Issues: Whether the delay in filing the claim for compensation should be condoned.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in New India Insurance Co. v. Smt. Shanti Misra, which held that in cases where an application for compensation is filed after the expiry of the limitation period, the delay can be condoned if the applicant can show that there was a reasonable cause for the delay.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and set aside the Tribunal's order rejecting the application for condonation of delay. It directed the Tribunal to proceed with the hearing and decide the claim on merits.
passed by the President, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, rejecting Ashabais application for condonation of delay in the filing of her Claim Case No. 12 of 1978 before the said Tribunal and which case related to compensations consequent upon the accident that took place on 9th April 1977 resulting in the death of her husband, the late Dattatraya.
2. On 9th April 1977 Ashabais husband Dattatraya, who was a Government pensioner aged about 65 years old, was going on a bicycle. A motor vehicle, namely, a truck bearing No. MHG 3815, belonging to respondent No. 1 herein, dashed against Dattatraya and his bicycle, as a
result whereof, Dattatraya fell down, suffered an accident and died on the
same day at about 6.30 in the evening. His widow, the present petitioner-
Ashabai, thereupon filed the instant case for compensation in the sum of
Rs. 10000 from Respondent No. 1, the owner of the truck, as also respondent
No. 2, the Insurance Company. There being delay in the filing of the said
case, the petitioner prayed for condonation thereof. The Tribunal having
rejected the said prayer. the petitioner Ashabai, has hence approached this Court by the present revision application.
3. In support of this petition, I have heard Mr. P. A. Halve, the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Respondent No. 1, the owner of the truck, though duly served, has not chosen to appear either personally or through any Advocate of this Court. Respondent No. 2, the Insurance Company, appears through its learned Advocate Mr. G. S. Padhye.
4. Hearing the rival submissions of the respective Advocates, I find the impugned order unsustainable. Though the accident occurred on 9th
April 1977 and period of limitation for a claim for compensation was six months therefrom, the Tribunal itself had not been established till nearly
seven months thereafter on 1st November 1977. Moreover, the petitioner
had averred that in view of her husbands tragic death, she was over-come by severe mental shock and could not, consequently, even think of compensation. Still further, she had also submitted that her relations advised her that limitation for approaching Court was two years. In all these circumstances, too technical a view of the matter has resulted in miscarriage of justice to a widow. It is also unfortunate that widow Ashabais claim based upon the tragic death of her husband Dattatraya, a retired Government pensioner, should be sought to be defeated by the truck owner and the Insurance Company on the ground of delay. The conduct in particular of the Insurance Company is one which cannot be appreciated.
5. Delay in the filing of the petition there undoubtedly is. But that is precisely why the prayer to condone it is made and power to grant the same is conferred. Delays are not unheard of in Court proceedings. This
is not a case of utter negligence on the part of Ashabai, nor is it a case of
any contumacious conduct on her part. In this view, condonation, particularly in a most tragic case as the instant one, should generally be rather a rule than an exception. In such cases, to insist on sufficient cause being established with great meticulousness is akin to pursuing a technicality at the cost of grave injustice to a forlorn widow bereft of her husband who was the unfortunate victim of a fatal accident. Again, as is not unknown, countless widows in this country are hardly aware of their legal rights and for of Constitution of special Tribunal, for the enforcement thereof. Here, indeed, is a classic case of widow approaching on her husbands death one such special tribunal with a simple prayer for condoning delay in claiming compensation and deciding her case on merits, but receiving a tragic blow by her remedy being nipped in the bud and her quest for justice extinguished ab initio. Denial of condonation in a case such as this is almo