The Tribunal has the power to allow the amendment of a claim petition after the expiry of the limitation period, if the claimant shows sufficient cause for the delay.

R.N.Mittal, J.

1. By this judgment I shall dispose of two F.A.O. Nos. 81 and 145 of 1971 which arise out of the same award of the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambala (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, dated February 17, 1971.

2. The facts giving rise to this litigation are that Dr. Om Parkash claimant was riding on his motor bicycle from Ambala City towards Model Town, Ambala on May 15, 1966. When he was on the road inter-section near Polytechnic he was hit by bus bearing No. PNE 9009 which was coming from Grand Trunk Road and was proceeding to the Bus Stand, Ambala. The bus belonged to the Tourist Co-operative Transport Society Ltd., Ambala City (hereinafter referred to as the Society) and was being driven by Mewa Singh driver, respondent No. 1. It was insured with the Jupiter General Insurance Co. Ltd., The Mall, Ambala Cantt, (hereinafter referred to as the Company). The claimant filed a claim of Rs 50,000/- against the respondents on the ground that the accident took place on account of negligent and rash driving of respondent No 1, who was driving the bus at a high speed. The claimant suffered a permanent deformity in his left leg as there is stiffness in his knee, on account of which he has started limping. The respondent denied the allegations of the claimant and contested the claim application. They, inter alia, pleaded that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the claimant himself. It was he who struck his motor bicycle against the bus. The claimant while crossing the road intersection did not blow horn and entered the same at a very high speed. The claimant has not suffered any monetary loss. The Tribunal, after recording the evidence held that the accident took place on account of negligence of both the claimant and the driver in which the former was negligent to the extent of 25 per cent whereas the latter to the extent of 75 per cent, and the claimant suffered total damages to the extent of Rs. 29,000/-. The Tribunal consequently held that the claimant was entitled to an amount of Rs. 21,750/- and awarded him the said amount.

3. The Society and the Company filed on appeal against the said award bearing No. 81 of 1971. The claimant also filed an appeal against the award claiming an enhanced amount of compensation. The said appeal has been numbered as 145 of 1971. The first contention of Mr, Lalit Mohan Suri is that the claim in the begining was filed for an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Subsequently, the claimant made an application for amendment of the claim petition on December 2, 1967 and requested that he should be allowed to claim an amount of Rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs. 10,000/. The application was allowed by the Tribunal on February 5, 1968. Mr. Suri submits that the amendment of the claim petition could not be allowed as the limitation for filing the claim petition had already expired. The question of limitation was not raised by the counsel for the company at the time of arguments before the Tribunal. Under sub-section (8) of section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), application for compensation could be filed within a period of 60 days. The Tribunal could, however, entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of 60 days, if it was satisfied that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. The Tribunal had the power to condone the delay for making a claim petition as is clear from the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 110-A of the Act. In case the objection would have been raised by the Company or the Society before the Tribunal, it. could extend the limitation for filing the application on the request of the claimant. It is in evidence that the claimant had not completely recovered when the claim petition was filed. He had to be operated again as late as December, 1968. It is also in evidence that he remained under continuous treatment even after the filing o