The court held that the respondent had established sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the claim application and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus driver.

Gopal Singh, J.

1. This appeal is by the State of Punjab and the Punjab Roadways against Lieutenant J. P. S. Kapoor. It is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punjab dated May 28, 1968. Facts leading to the appeal are as under :

2. On September 14, 1964 at 6.45 a. m., the respondent left Officers Mess at Ajit Road, Jullundur Cantt. on Scooter No. PNA-31 to attend the office of his Unit. When he reached the crossing of Ajit Road and Nalva Road, a passenger Bus No. PNJ 6170 belonging to appellant No. 2 struck against the scooter. The scooter and the respondent were thrown at a distance of 20 feet and the respondent received injuries on being struck against the wall of the culvert where the accident took place. The bus was being driven by Chanan Singh driver. According to the case of the respondent, the bus at the time, the accident took place was being driven at a very high speed and that the driver neither slowed down nor blew any horn when he crossed the point of junction of the two roads and that it is as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus that the respondent met with the accident and sustained injuries. As a consequence of the accident, the left leg of the respondent was completely fractured and the right ankle was also fractured. By the striking of the head of the respondent against the wall of the culvert, the respondent received on the head a contused wound 4 inches x 3 inches rendering the respondent unconscious immediately after the receipt of that injury. The respondent remained unconsious continuously for a period of 2½ months from the date of the receipt of the injury.

3. The occurrence of the accident is said to have been seen by Sarvjeet, who was proceeding to her school and happened to be near the place of the accident. She, however, narrowly escaped when the respondent struck against the wall. At the time, Subedar Baldev Singh of 161 Field Regiment happened to be close to the place of the accident. He lodged the first information report at the Police Station, Jullundur Cantt. The respondent was removed to the Military Hospital, Jullundur Cantt, situated near by and was given medical aid. In order to make more competent medical aid available to the respondent, he was removed from the military hospital at Jullundur Cantt, to the military hospital at Delhi Cantt. on October 2, 1964 and he remained under the treatment of Major H. R. Luthra. For 2½ months he remained unconscious. Five operations had to be performed. He remained bedridden till November 30, 1966. He was invalided for military service because of the physical deformities including the fracture of the leg and the facial paralysis and stammering of the tongue. After discharge from the military hospital, he continued under treatment of Dr. Karam Singh.

4. The respondent filed application on November 26, 1966 against the apellants under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called the Act claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 5,25,000. In support of his claim,. the respondent appeared as A.W. i apart from producing Sarvjeet A. W. 2 and Dr. Karam Singh A. W. 3. The father of the respondent, Professor Shyam Singh also supported the claim of the respondent as A. W. 4. The plea of the respondent that the accident occured as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the bus was controverted and liability of the appellants for the claim of the respondent denied. It was also pleaded on behalf of the appellants in the written statement filed that the claim of the respondent was. barred by time and in any case the quantum of compensation claimed was excessive and uncalled for. The above pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues :

(i) Was the accident due to any negligent act on the part of the driver of the bus involved or that of the applicant himself or that of both and with what effect.

(ii) Is the claim application within time an