( 1 ) AN unfortunate and illiterate widow belonging to a scheduled tribe whose husband died in a motor vehicle accident has been driven to this Court because her petition claiming compensation has been rejected on the ground that it was barred by limitation and that no sufficient cause for condonation of delay was made out. The circumstances (to be presently mentioned) under which the delay was occasioned speak for themselves and it is somewhat strange and agonising that the second opponent (Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation) should have shown such determined diligence in setting up the plea of limitation under those circumstances against a person like the petitioner.

( 2 ) IN the course of an accident which occurred on November 15 1972 the husband of the petitioner was killed- The vehicle involved in the accident is owned by the second opponent. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Broach on March 17 1973 that is to say well within the period of limitation. It appears that the petitioner had engaged a junior advocate of less than seven years standing to take various preliminary steps in the proceedings and that a senior advocate practicing at Baroda was to appear on her behalf at the hearing of the matter. However when the said petition came on for hearing before the Tribunal on June 18 1974 the advocate from Baroda could not remain present and the petitioner was represented by the junior advocate. The petitioner herself was also not present because she was in. During the course of the hearing of the said petition in the chamber of the presiding officer of the Tribunal several objections were raised oh behalf of the second opponent as to the maintainability of the petition on certain technical grounds. It appears that at that stage it was suggested by the Tribunal to the advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petition might be withdrawn with permission to file a fresh petition as the defects were formal. The advocate of the petitioner however expressed his apprehension that in that case the question of limitation might arise and he requested that time might be granted to him to consider the matter especially because the senior advocate from Baroda was not present. The Tribunal however expressed the view that the defects were of such a nature that the petition would have to be eventually dismissed and that no different result was likely to ensue even if time was granted. Besides the question of limitation could be taken care of. Ultimately therefore the advocate withdraw the petition on the same day with permission to file a fresh petition though he was on his own admission not in a position to appreciate the true legal position. Be it noted that the permission was granted subject to the question of limitation. It appears that during the course of the hearing some representation was also made on behalf of the second opponent by its advocate that the claim might be mutually settled around Rs. 5000. 00 by negotiations between the parties if and when a fresh petition was filed and this factor also appears to have weighed in the matter of withdrawal of the petition. These facts emerge from an affidavit filed by the concerned advocate as well as from his cross-examination in the course of the proceeding giving rise to this revision application.

( 3 ) THE fresh petition came to be filed thereafter on July 19 1974 This petition was obviously beyond the period of limitation and the petitioner therefore filed an application for condonation of delay under sec. 110a (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 The application was supported by the affidavit of the advocate who appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the earlier proceeding and to the contents of which reference has been made earlier. It was also supported by the affidavit of the petitioner herself in which she stated that she was indisposed on or about June 18 1974 and that between June 18 1974 and Jul