Sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 110-A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, should be construed liberally, considering the beneficent nature of the legislation and the genuine reasons provided by the claimant.

N.K.Kapoor, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the rejection of a claim petition instituted under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 , on the ground of limitation.

2. The claimant filed a petition for compensation of Rs. 40,000/- against the respondents on the ground that he suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 and remained admitted in the hospital for a pretty long time. The accident took place on 5.6.1983 whereas the petition seeking compensation was filed on 18.5.1984. The reasons given for late submission of the claim petition as per para 22 of the claim petition are as under:

The petitioner got injured on 5.6.1983 and was admitted in the General Hospital, Narnaul, as an indoor patient that very day. The petitioner was discharged on 20.6.1983 but was instructed and directed to take bed-rest as he had been given plaster bandage. The petitioner is bedridden. It was only on 18.5.1984 that the petitioner was brought to the court of Addl. C.J.M., Narnaul, to make a statement in criminal case State v. Radhey Shyam about the said accident. On being brought to the court, the petitioner contacted Mr. Hari Mohan, Advocate, Narnaul and asked as to whether the petitioner will get compensation for the injuries in the said criminal case whereupon he was told by the said lawyer that a separate claim petition for compensation will have to be filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Narnaul. Since the petitioner was not able to move about and was not aware that the claim can be filed, the petitioner is filing the petition today without any unnecessary or mala fide delay. As such the delay is liable to be condoned.

3. Notice was issued by the Tribunal to the respondents who put in appearance and filed the written statement challenging the maintainability of the petition as well as denied that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Radhey Shyam, respondent No. 1.

4. The Tribunal framed the following issues as they arose on the pleadings of the parties:

(1) Whether there is any sufficient ground to condone delay? OPP.

(2) Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle No. DLZ 6839? OPP.

(3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any amount of compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP.

(4) Whether motor cycle No. DLZ 6839 was not being driven by a person holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR.

(5) Relief.

5. Issue No. 1 was treated as preliminary. The petitioner in support of this issue appeared as PW 1 and stated on oath that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of motor cycle bearing No. DLZ 6839. On account of injuries sustained in this accident, the claimant remained as indoor patient for 15 days. He was relieved from the hospital and was advised rest. The claimant further stated that he was given plaster bandage and so remained bedridden. It is only on 18.5.1984 that he was brought to the court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul, to make his statement in a case titled as State v. Radhey Shyamin respect of the same accident. It is then that he consulted Mr. Hari Mohan, Advocate, Narnaul, as to whether he can be awarded compensation for the injuries so suffered by him on account of the negligent driving of Radhey Shyam and this way delay so accrued is liable to be condoned being bona fide. Tasbir Singh, claimants son, appeared as PW 2. He supported the version given by his father, i.e., he remained in hospital for 15 days, was plastered twice for a period of 1 1/2 months on each occasion and remained confined to bed for almost 11 1/2 months.

6. By way of rebuttal, Radhey Shyam appeared as RW 1. He denied the accident. However, in his next breath he stated that Girdhari Lal, claimant, met him, asked for a compromise and demanded compensation. In fact, Girdhari Lal met him a number of times. To the similar effect is the sta