The court held that a mere probability of misguidance by counsel's advice does not lead to the conclusion that the claimants had in fact been so misguided and that the Tribunal was justified in condoning the delay in filing the claim petition.

H.N. SETH, J.

1. The Appellants who were opposite parties in a claim filed u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act have come up in appeal against the award dated 23-12-1972 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Meerut. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/-to the applicants as Compensation for the loss suffered by them on account of death of one Mahendra Singh which took Place on 15th December, 1969 at 9.45 A.M.

2. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has pressed the following two points before us

1. That the claim made by the claimants was barred by time, and

2. That the Tribunal erred in holding that the death of Mahendra Singh was caused because of rash and negligent driving of truck No. U.S.L. 8738.

3. So far as the first point raised by the Appellants is concerned the accident in question took place on 15th December, 1969. The claim petition was filed on 9th April 1970. According to the law as it stood on 15th of December 1969 the claim petition could be filed within 60 days of the accident. When at the time of the hearing of the petition an objection with regard to limitation was raised, the claimants filed an application supported by an affidavit on 19th February,1972 in which it was alleged that the claimants had approached their counsel at Delhi on 20th of January, 1970 and had paid him his full fees The counsel assured them that limitation for making the claim had been extended to six months and as such the petition could be filed within six months and that he would file the same in due course. The applicant waited for information from his client and ultimately filed the claim on 9th of April, 1970. The claimants, therefore, prayed that the delay in filing the claim petition be condoned.

4. Aforesaid application filed by the claimant was resisted by the Appellants on two grounds, firstly that the application to condone the delay should have been filed at the time of presenting the claim petition and that it could not be filed at subsequent stage; secondly that the reason given in the application for condoning the delay could not be accepted inasmuch as the law by which the period of limitation was extended from 60 days to 6 months, came into force only on 2nd of March 1970, i.e., after the period of limitation for filing tie claim had already expired. In the circumstances, there was no question of any counsel advising in the month of January 1970 that the limitation for filing the claim petition was six months.

5. The Claims Tribunal in our opinion, rightly rejected the first submission made by the counsel for the Appellant. The law merely requires that if a claim u/s 110-A has been filed beyond the period of limitation the claimant has to explain the delay and if the Tribunal is satisfied with the explanation it can condone the same and entertain the petition even after the period of limitation for filing the same has expired. The law does not require that the explanation for the delay in filing the claim must necessarily accompany the claim petition itself. It may be that if the explanation is offered at a later stage the Tribunal may suspect it and scrutinise the same with great amount of care. The Tribunal, therefore, had ample jurisdiction to entertain the explanation offered by the claimants.

6. Coming now to the merits of the explanation offered by the claimants we find that actually Section 110-A had been amended by Act No. 96 of 1969 which was passed on 29th of December, 1970. However, it was enforced subsequently with effect from 2nd of March, 1970. If the counsel overlooked the fact that the Act which had been passed on 29-12-70 had actually not been enforced, he could advise the claimants that limitation for filing the claim had been extended to six months. In the circumstances the explanation of the claimants that they had handed over the papers to the concerned on the 20th January, 1970 and that the counsel had advised that the limitation for filing the claim had been extended