The provisions of sections 29(2) and 22(1) of the Limitation Act, 1908, do not apply to the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as the Tribunal is a persona designata and not a Court.

Mehar Singh, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of two revision applications Nos. 671 and 680 of 1963, first by the driver (Harbans Singh) and the second by the owner (Baldev Mittar Bijli) of a goods motor vehicle, which, when driven by Harbans Singh applicant on March, 1960 overran Karam Kaur wife of Atma Singh respondent and mother of the other respondents, causing her death, from the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, dated June 14, 1963, awarding Rs. 1,800/- as compensation to Atma Singh respondent. The children of the deceased were not granted any compensation because they were major.

2. The version of the accident in the evidence of Gurbachan Singh, Tirath Singh and Atma Singh witnesses that while the last-mentioned witness was sleeping under a tent at Anandpur Sahib along with his deceased wife and other companions, the goods vehicle of the applicants came loaded with flour and, while trying to enter Anandpur Sahib area, the driver (Harbans Singh applicant) was not in a position to control it while taking it up on the height towards the Gurdwara and it instead of going upwards came back on the reverse and ran over the tent causing the death of the wife of Atma Singh respondent, is a version which was accepted by Tribunal and of which the correctness has not been challenged in these revision applications.

3. There has been some objection to the competence of the revision applications under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure from the award of the Tribunal, but that need not effect these applications as the same can be considered under Article 227 of the Constitution.

4. It was proved before the Tribunal that the goods vehicle owned by Baldev Mittar Bijli applicant and driven on the date of the accident by Harbans Singh applicant was not insured. It was the duty of the owner to insure it under section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act 4 of 1939), hereinafter to be referred as the Act, and, as he did not insure it, for that breach he has been liable to prosecution under section 125 of the Act, but it is not quite clear at this stage whether he has or has not been prosecuted for that offence. In any event, the goods vehicle was allowed by Baldev Mittar Bijli applicant to be driven by Harbans Singh applicant without having been insured in accordance with the provisions of section 94 of the Act.

5. An application under section 110A of the Act was made by Atma Singh respondent for compensation to the Tribunal on September 7, 1960. To that application he impleaded the driver as also the owner as parties. At that time he named the owner as one Bikram Singh, who appeared before the Tribunal and disclosed that the real owner of the goods vehicle was Baldev Mittar Bijli applicant. On that this applicant was impleaded as a party respondent to the application on May 24, 1961. According to sub-section (3) of section 110A of the Act such an application for compensation is to be made within sixty days of the occurrence of the accident, but the proviso to that sub-section says that the Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of sixty days if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. The application of Atma Singh respondent was out of time both against the driver and the owner of the goods vehicle. The Tribunal has under the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 110A of the Act been satisfied that there was sufficient cause for making the application after delay so far as the driver is concerned and also there was sufficient cause for delay in the impleading of Baldev Mittar Bijli, the owner, as a party to it. In so far as the cause shown for the delay in the making of the application against the driver is concerned, nothing has been said here, but with regard to the owner the contention of the learned counsel for him is that the application must be taken to have been made against him on the day he was impleaded