The Court held that the delay in filing a claim petition under Section 110-A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act may be condoned if the claimant can establish sufficient cause for the delay, and that the courts should take a liberal approach in considering such applications, especially in cases involving illiterate, ignorant, and financially weak claimants.

Bhawani Singh, J.—Brestu Ram, once a Mason in the Beas-Sutlej Link Project, Sundernagar, drawing Rs. 650 per month, at that stage, appears to have been rendered penniless, if not to this extent, at least appears to be bony-structure moving about and into this Court on crutches and appeals through his Counsel, Shri Rajeev Mehta, for the decision of his appeal filed in 1983. His complaint is justified as he had the right to move the Court and the Court has to render justice to the litigants, more so in such like cases, at the earliest. 1 proceed to examine his case with the assistance of learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

2. The facts, in brief, are that Brestu Ram (35) was working as a Mason in the Beas Sutlej Link Project, Sundernagar, and was drawing Rs. 650 per month. He states that on 19-5-1977, he had gone to village Jakhelar to bring bamboos. He was standing on the correct side of the road and was 2/4 feet away from the metalled part of the same. In the meantime, Truck No. HPM-841, belonging to respondent No. 1, came from Mandi side. It was being driven rashly. The bumper of the truck hit his legs. Grievous injuries to his person were caused. His legs were fractured and feet amputated resulting in 100 per cent permanent disablement.

3. The claimant further states that due to the accident, he became physically wrecked and mentally deranged. He got full senses on 15-8 1981. There was none to guide and pursue the matter on his behalf because he had a simpleton wife and small children. He had to remain in Civil Hospital, Mandi, and he was also treated in Snowdon Hospital, Simla. 4 The claim petition was prepared on 18-8-1981 and was presented on 28-8-1981 and claim of rupees one lakh with interest at the rate of \2 per cent per annum from the date of the institution of the application with costs has been made. It has been stated under item No 24 of this application that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of the driver and both his legs were totally fractured and the feet had to be amputated. There were multiple injuries on his person and there was a fracture on his arm also. He remained as an in-door patient in Civil Hospital, Mandi, and thereafter he was treated at Snowdon Hospital Simla, and then again at Civil Hospital, Mandi He was physically wrecked and mentally deranged. He got full senses on 15-8-1981. There was none to guide and pursue the matter on his behalf. He had little children and a village simpleton wife, so, the petition was within limitation.

5. There is an amended petition on the record of this case wherein the petitioner has claimed interest at the rate of 13 per cent per annum and has also impleaded the New India Assurance Company as a party-respondent.

6. The respondents have repudiated the claim of the claimant and it has been denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 2 on the date, place and time mentioned in the petition as the vehicle was never plied on Mandi-Sarkaghat Road on that day nor any accident took place with the same and the petitioner was not injured with the vehicle of the replying respondent. The vehicle in question was carrying mukh from Harabagh to B. S. L. Project, Pandoh. It has also been asserted that the claim petition was hopelessly time-barred and was, on that account liable to be dismissed. All these facts have been disputed by the claimant in the rejoinder and it has further been submitted that the claimant was absolutely invalid and permanently disabled and thus was prevented by reasons beyond control and thus he could not institute the claim petition earlier and a prayer has been made to condone the delay as facts mentioned in the main petition disclose sufficient grounds for doing so. These are the respective versions of the parties and after trial the Tribunal rejected the claim petition on the ground of limitation as well as on the ground that it has not been proved that the accident took plac