Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by Jagvir Singh minor through Shri Pritam Singh against the order of Motor Accidents Claims, Tribunal, Ludhiana, dated 17.5.1986, dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the petition.

2. The appellant filed a claim petition under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and also an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the petition. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by holding that there was no sufficient ground for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition, under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. The order of the Tribunal has been assailed on the short ground that there were sufficient grounds for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition and that limitation does not run against the minor.

4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the paper book.

5. The father of the appellant had died in the accident on 18.12.1983. The mother of the claimant also died after some time. The grand-parents of the appellant who were to look after him had also sustained injuries in the same accident in which his father was killed. The grand-father of the appellant died on 27.1.1984 and thereafter his grand-mother died on 25.5,1984. After the death of the grand parents, the guardianship of the appellant was changed from time of time. As such no claim petition could be filed on behalf of the appellant. Ultimately, the maternal grand-father of the appellant Pritam Singh undertook to look after the minor for brining him up. When he came to know that no claim application had been filed, Pritam Singh filed the claim petition along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition. The Court is of the view that the above mentioned facts are sufficient in condoning the delay in filing the claim petition. Had the Tribunal taken into consideration the factual position of the case seriously, it would not have dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. It is apparent from the judgment that the Tribunal did not bother to take into consideration the factual position and dismissed the claim petition in a whimsical manner.

6. In Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag and Ors. v. Mst. Katiji and Ors., A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1353 the principles for disposal of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have been enunciated. Applying those principles to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am satisfied that the delay in filing the claim petition was not intentional. The appellant was handicapped to file the claim petition being minor and he has made out sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

7. The Motor Vehicles Act is asocial legislation which was enacted by the Parliament in its wisdom to provide economic security to the dependents of the deceased. The compensation awarded is neither a booty nor a charity. The claimants get compensation as a matter of right for the loss suffered due to the sudden departure of the bread-earner. The Court should not be stringent in approach. Rather, it should be liberal in approach especially when the interest of a minor is involved and more particularly when parents and grand-parents of the minor are not on the scene, i.e., to protect the rights of the minor.

8. As a result, this appeal is allowed, the order of the Tribunal is quashed and delay in filing the claim petition is condoned. The case is remanded to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, for decision on merits.

9. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, on 11.10.1994.