T.N. Singh, J.

1. This is claimant's appeal who suffered fracture of femur bone of the thigh and was confined to hospital for 30 days. His claim being rejected he has appealed challenging findings of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, for short 'the M.A.C.T.', on two grounds. Admittedly, the accident took place on 6.7.1977 at 6.00 p.m. and claim petition was lodged on 2.5.1983. Mr. V.K. Sharma, counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, has contended, in support of the award, that there was no application for condonation of delay and real facts were suppressed by the claimant-appellant about his age. However, the second question to be decided is, whether the claimant-appellant did prove that he had suffered injury in the course of accident in which Tempo No. MPH 5350 was involved. Indeed, it is not denied that, that vehicle was insured during the relevant period with the contesting respondent. In the court below two separate written statements were filed. Those were by the driver and insurer.

2. Mr. N.M. Haswani, counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the driver having taken upon himself the burden to prove the case set up by him he had to have established his plea that it was a case of the claimant suffering injury not as a result of any accident caused by the vehicle, but due to his fall from the bicycle which did slide into a ditch. On the other hand, he did not enter into the witness-box and did not adduce any evidence otherwise also in support of his case. It is a fact that only claimant adduced evidence and examined himself and no witness has been examined on behalf of any of the defendants.

3. In so far as the question of limitation is concerned there is certainly some doubt about appellant's age when the accident took place.

4. Section 6(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 takes care of a legal disability of a man against whom running of limitation is suspended during his minority. He is entitled to the same period of limitation as would have been available to him in the normal course and that is to be reckoned on cessation of his disability. As per Sub-section (3) of Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Tribunal is empowered to entertain an application for compensation, if made within six months of the occurrence of the accident and indeed as per proviso thereof on sufficient cause being shown that period can be extended. It was evidently claimant's burden to establish that within six months of his attaining majority the claim was lodged and in the alternative to plead that a case for extension of time under the proviso was made out. Mr. Sharma has, therefore, contended that neither of those two conditions having been satisfied, the M.A.C.T. was well within its jurisdiction to dismiss the claim as time barred.

5. In the instant case, it cannot be disputed on facts that if actually the claimant-appellant was aged 12 years his claim would be within limitation but the evidence is conflicting. The doctor who was examined by the claimants, CW Dr. V.K. Diwani, stated that on 6.7.1977 when he examined the claimant in the hospital, who was sent to him by the Huzrat Kotwali Police, he recorded his age as 13 years. He was deposing from the hospital records which he proved as Exhs. P-1 and P-2. What I find looking at the records is that in Exh. P-3 age is also recorded as 14 years and the same age is recorded in Exhs. P-2 and P-5. The evidence of doctor can be accepted only with respect to Exh. P-1 in which the age recorded was 13 years and that document of course deserves priority because that document was drawn up immediately after the occurrence on 6.7.1977. The statement of injuries in the prescribed form is to be read in that document. Tribunal's own finding on the relevant issue No. 8 is that reckoning claimant's age as 14 years at the time of accident, the claim was time barred by one year and two months. That being the position if benefit of doubt is given to claimant for one year on account of