A court cannot require a person seeking condonation of delay to explain the delay with mathematical precision, especially when the legal position is unclear and legal advice is sought.

K. C. AGRAWAL, J. :- On the 19th July, 1966, occurred an accident in which Bhagwan Dass, husband of Smt. Pari Bai, appellant No. 1 and father of appellants Nos. 2 to 4, died in a motor accident. A cause of action accrued to the appellants to claim compensation as legal representatives of the deceased, under the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. A suit could be brought under Art. 82 of the Limitation Act, 1963, within two years of the occurrence of the accident. But, in the meantime, the Government of U. P. constituted the Claims Tribunal by a notification published in the Gazette dated 7th March, 1967. Despite the fact that a Tribunal had been constituted at Dehra Dun, where the appellants could file an application for compensation under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, they were advised to file a regular suit in the civil court on 1st April, 1968. The suit was contested by the respondents. One of the main grounds raised in the suit was whether the suit filed by the appellants in the civil court, after the constitution of the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, was competent. By the order dated 2nd June, 1970, the Civil Judge held that after the constitution of a Claims Tribunal all the applications for compensation of death arising out of the accidents, whether before or after the constitution of such Claims Tribunal, could be filed only before the Tribunal, and that the civil suit of the appellants was not maintainable. In this view of the matter, he dismissed the suit.

2. The appellants, thereafter, filed an application under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (briefly stated as the Act), on the 1st July, 1970. This application was admittedly, barred by time. The appellants, therefore, filed an application on 7th July, 1978, for condonation of delay on the ground that as they had been bona fide pursuing the civil suit, which ended in dismissal on 2nd June, 1970, therefore, the appellants were entitled to the condonation of delay. The respondents contested the application filed by the appellants for condonation of delay contending that as the appellants were guilty of negligence having filed the suit after the constitution of the Tribunal, they were not entitled to the condonation of delay. The respondents further contended that, in any view of the matter, since the appellants had not explained the delay for the period from 2nd June, 1970 to 1st July, 1970, therefore, the applications for condonation of delay and for compensation were liable to be rejected. The appellants, thereafter, filed a supplementary affidavit explaining the delay for the period from 2nd June, 1970 to 1st July, 1970. In this affidavit, the averment made was that after the dismissal of the suit, since there were divergent opinions of different High Courts, the appellants obtained the legal opinion as to whether an appeal be filed or an application be moved and only when they were advised to move an application, they did so on the 1st of July, 1970. The Claims Tribunal, however, did not accept the grounds taken by the appellants in the application for condonation of delay, and being of the opinion that the delay had not been satisfactorily explained, dismissed the application by the order dated 6-4-1972. The application for compensation was also rejected thereafter on 26th April, 1972. Aggrieved by these orders, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants in this Court.

3. The question which arises for decision in this appeal is whether the appellants had satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the application under S. 110-A of the Act. Section 110-A (1) provides for an application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-sec. (1) of S. 110. Sub-sec. (3) of S. 110-A lays down that no application for compensation under this section shall be entertained unless made within sixty days of the occurrence of the accident. The Claims Tribunal has, however, been conferred the power to entertain an applic