The Tribunal has the power to condone delay in filing a claim petition under Section 110-A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and must summon witnesses if an application is presented by a party under Rule 8 of the Assam Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1960.

This is somewhat startling disposal of a Claim Case by the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, who made every endeavour to nip in the bud the "claim case" arising out of a motor accident, in a short-circuit manner.

2. The appellants (husband and wife) lost their well grown up young child aged about 18 years in a motor accident; the accident happened on 9-2-69 and the young man died on 20-2-69. A claim petition was filed by the parents before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Nowgong on 21-4-69. At all relevant time, the period of limitation for making such claim application before the Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, was 60 days. The period of limitation has been extended to 6 months. Under S. 110-A (3), Claims Tribunals have power to entertain application even after the expiry of the period of limitation if it is satisfied that the applicant has been prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. The appellants/claimants filed a claim petition on the death of their son in the motor accident before the Tribunal on 21-4-69. Along with the said application, a sworn affidavit was filed by the father (appellant No. 1) supported by a medical certificate stating that the delay in preferring the claim petition was due to his illness. The appellant No. 1 stated inter alia that he was illiterate and that he could not present the application within the limitation due to his illness. The medical certificate was that of an Assistant Surgeon, Class I of Nowgong Civil Hospital. There is no counter to the said affidavit.

3. Under the provisions of the Assam Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1960, the Tribunal, on receipt of such an application could have examined the applicant on oath and recorded his statement and could have dismissed the claim petition after his examination. It did not do either. The Tribunal issued notice to the parties; they appeared and filed written statements; the case was ready for hearing; the matter was unnecessarily prolonged and there was no real endeavour made by the Tribunal either to dispose of the application for condonation of the delay or the claim case itself.

4. On 18-1-71, the appellant No. 1 filed an application clarifying certain statements in the original application for condonation of the delay. He stated inter alia that in the medical certificate, through mistake, the doctor had failed to record that he (the appellant No. 1) was advised to take rest for 5 days more after 17-4-69. He filed a fresh medical certificate by the very same Assistant Surgeon, Class I. The said applications, the affidavit in support thereof and the medical certificate are at pages 32-37 of the Paper Book. The appellants also filed an application praying for summoning of the doctor in question for examination in the proceedings in support of his case. No counter was filed by any of the Respondents against the affidavits filed by the appellant No. 1 regarding his illness nor the correctness of the certificates was disputed by the Respondents in any application or affidavit.

5. In the absence of any such counter, in my opinion, the Tribunal could have acted on the affidavits and the medical certificates filed along with the condonation application, but the Tribunal refused to condone the delay and dismissed the claim petition on two grounds - firstly, that no reason was given as to why the other claimant, namely, the mother (appellant No. 2) could not file the claim petition in time and, secondly, the doctor was found to be "very cheap" and no reliance was placed on the medical certificates.

6. In my opinion, the Tribunal has committed a grave error in considering that it was necessary for all the heirs and legal representatives to make such claim applications. On a bare perusal of the Rules, it appears clear that it is not at all necessary for all the heirs and legal representatives to make such an application. In any view of the matter, the Tri