JUDGMENT :

N. V. Ramana, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 17.10.2016 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in AO No.266 of 2014, wherein the High Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds of delay of 45 days.

4. The facts in brief giving rise to this appeal are as follows: The deceased aged 26 years, met with an accident on 15.04.2011, as his bike crashed into a truck parked negligently on the road, without any backlight’s indication. Resultantly, he succumbed to the injuries while being taken to the hospital. The appellants (parents of the deceased) preferred a petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs. Vide order 07.02.2014, the tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2.24 Lakhs as compensation along with interest of 6% p.a. Aggrieved, the appellants approached the High Court for seeking enhancement of compensation. It is to be noted that the aforesaid appeal before the High Court was filed with 45 days delay. In order to explain the same, the appellants herein filed an application being CLMA 6569/2014, seeking condonation of delay on the ground that his wife was ill, which prevented him from appealing in time.

5. By impugned order dated 17.10.2016, the High Court dismissed the aforesaid delay condonation application, consequent upon which the appeal also got dismissed. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellants herein have approached this Court through special leave petition.

6. The counsel on behalf of the appellants submitted that High Court has acted in an unjustified manner in dismissing the application for condonation of delay. On the contrary, the counsel on behalf of the Respondent supported the judgment passed by the High Court.

7. Having heard the counsel for both parties, the short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the High Court erred in dismissing the delay condonation application for 45 days? This question turns on interpretation of Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

8. At the outset, we must note that, Chapter XII of the Act is a beneficial legislation intended at protecting the rights of victims affected in road accidents. Moreover, the Act is a self-contained code in itself which provides procedures for filing claims, for passing of award and for preferring an appeal. Even, the limitations for preferring the remedies are contained in the code itself.

9. The interpretation of a beneficial legislation must be remedial and must be in furtherance with the purpose which the statute seeks to serve. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by this court on multiple occasions wherein this court has highlighted the importance acknowledging legislative intention while interpreting the provisions of the statute. This court in the case of Bombay Anand Bhavan Restaurant v. Deputy Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation., (2009) 9 SCC 61 while interpreting the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act held that it being a beneficial legislation should receive a liberal construction so as to promote its objectives. This court held therein:

“20. The Employees’ State Insurance Act is a beneficial legislation. The main purpose of the enactment as the Preamble suggests, is to provide for certain benefits to employees of a factory in case of sickness, maternity and employment injury and to make provision for certain other matters in relation thereto. The Employees’ State Insurance Act is a social security legislation and the canons of interpreting a social legislation are different from the canons of interpretation of taxation law. The courts must not countenance any subterfuge which would defeat the provisions of social legislation and the courts must even, if necessary, strain the language of the Act in order to achieve the purpose which the legislature had in placing this legislation on the statute book. The Act, ther