The Court held that the delay in filing the claim petition was due to wrong legal advice and that the Tribunal should have considered the socio-economic object of the Motor Vehicles Act and not dismissed the petition on a technicality.

G. M. LODHA, J.

( 1 ) YET another fatal accident of wrong legal advice has proved fatal to claimants, depriving compensation.

( 2 ) THIS appeal filed under S. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, against the judgment dated the 2nd April, 1980 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur holding that the applicant/appellant is entitled to get Rs. 23,700/- as compensation but, dismissed the application for compensation on the ground of petition being barred by limitation.

( 3 ) THE bus No. MPA 3760 started for going to Khwaja Chistis Dargah, Ajmer on 20th July, 1974 and reached Ajmer on 24th July, 1974. While returning from Ajmer, when the said bus, on 28th July, 1974 at about 11 a. m. was in between Mahwa and Bharatpur, truck No. USM 7075 of Harnamdas Chawla, the respondent No. 3, came from opposite side rashly and speedily, and collided (with) each other while crossing. The appellant was sitting in the said (sic) resting on the window. On account of the collision of truck No. USN (USM?) 7055 which was being driven by Bharatlal, the respondent No. 5, negligently, insured with the New India Insurance Company, Bareilly, with bus No. MPA 3760 belonging to the respondent No. 1, driven by the respondent No. 2; the right hand of the appellant was crushed and had to be amputated having received collar bone fracture and had to undergo a prolonged treatment.

( 4 ) THE claimant-appellant in the claim petition pleaded that he was 36 years old on the day of the accident. Therefore, a claim of Rs. 65,000/- was preferred as compensation from the respondents.

( 5 ) THE claimant-appellant filed claim petition in the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhatarpur (M. P.) on 22nd Jan. , 1975 which was registered as M. A. C. T. case No. 2/75, along with an application under S. 20 (b) C. P. C. for leave to sue the defendants in the Tribunal of Chhatarpur.

( 6 ) ON 28th Jan. , 1975, after registration of the claim petition and, following the due procedure, the notices were issued to the respondents to submit the written statements. After service on the respondents, the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 made their appearance through their counsel. On 29th July, 1975, the respondent No. 4 made an application to the Tribunal to set aside the order for proceedings taken ex parte against him. On 8th Sept. , 1975, the respondent No. 3 filed written statement. He did not make any objection regarding jurisdiction of the Tribunal but, the respondents Nos. 1,2 and 4 challenged the jurisdiction of the Tribunal of Chhatarpur, which vide its order dated the 9th Dec. , 1975 held that it had no jurisdiction and the claim petition be returned to the claim petitioner for presentation before the proper Court. The appellant received the said claim petition on 10th Dec. , 1975 and on the very same day he rushed at Bharatpur and filed claim petition, next day on 11th Dec. , 1975 before the Tribunal, Bharatpur along with an application under S. 14 read with S. 5 of the Limitation Act. Before the Tribunal, Bharatpur, the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 filed their reply wherein they took preliminary objections that the appellant has not filed the claim petition within time and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide it. On merits, though they admitted the accident but pleaded that the accident took place on account of negligence of the appellant himself and not by the negligence of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

( 7 ) AFTER framing of the issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and recording of the evidence of the parties, vide the impugned award, the Tribunal has rejected the claim petition of the appellant firstly on the ground that it is barred by limitation.

( 8 ) THIS finding of the Tribunal is challenged by the appellant. The appellant-claimant examined Shivanand Sinha (A. W. 4) before the Tribunal in order to explain the delay. Earlier an application was filed before the Tribunal of Chhatarpur. The respondents-non-applicants appeared