Allowed

Dhanpat Singh v. Jagjit Singh & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Jan 2012FAO/1187/1989

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, hearing appeals against dismissal of claim petitions on grounds of limitation, held that Section 110-A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act must be interpreted beneficially. The Court considered the appellants' illiteracy a bona fide cause and allowed condonation of delay, remitting the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned awards dismissing the claim petitions are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to be decided on merits.

Dhanpat Singh Vs Jagjit Singh & Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

FAO No.1187 of 1989 FAO No.1188 of 1989

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

1 FAO No.1187 of 1989
Date of decision:4.1.2012

Dhanpat Singh

....Appellant

Versus

Jagjit Singh and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

2 FAO No.1188 of 1989

¶11

Sajjan Singh

¶12

....Appellant

¶13

Versus Jagjit Singh and others

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶16

Present: Ms.Shiwani Verma, Advocate for the appellants in both the appeals.

¶17

Mr.Vivek Singal, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company

¶18

¶19

Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)

¶20

This judgment shall dispose of both the aforementioned appeals

¶21

i.e. FAO No.1187 of 1989, filed by Dhanpat Singh, injured and FAO

¶22

FAO No.1187 of 1989 FAO No.1188 of 1989 2

¶23

No.1188, filed by Sajjan Singh, injured, having arisen out of the same accident. Both these appeals have been preferred against the award dated 3.8.1989, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide which the claim petition preferred by the appellants was dismissed on the ground that the same were barred by limitation.

¶24

The accident took place on 4.9.1988, in which both the appellants suffered injuries. Dhanpat Singh and Sajjan Singh filed separate claim petitions on 10.3.1989 and 15.3.1989 respectively. The learned Tribunal dismissed both the claim petitions on the ground of limitation. Hence, both the appeals.

¶25

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

¶26

The claim petition was dismissed by the learned Tribunal being barred by limitation for 6 days in claim petition No.20 MACT of 13.3.1989 and for 10 days in claim petition No.21-MACT of 15.3.1989. The appellant Dhanpat Singh raised the plea that he came to learn from Ram Sarup, driver that he could file a claim petition, whereas Sajjan Singh came to know from Dhanpat Singh Munshi that he has a remedy under the law to claim compensation. But the learned Tribunal rejected their prayers for condonation of delay in filing the claim petitions by observing that the ignorance of law is no excuse.

¶27

In my considered opinion, the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial welfare legislation, which should be interpreted in the manner, which advances the cause of justice. The delay was not so alarming that it

¶28

FAO No.1187 of 1989 FAO No.1188 of 1989

¶29

¶30

could not be condoned.

¶31

Section 110-A (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, reads as

¶32

under:

¶33

“ 110-A. Application for compensation,- (1) xx xx

¶34

(2) xx xx

¶35

(3) No application for such compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident:

¶36

Provided that the Claims Tribunal may entertain in the application after the expiry of the said period of six months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time.

¶37

The appellants -claimants were illiterate persons and the delay occurred is a bona fide one. The benefit of welfare legislation ought not to have been denied to them. This Court feels that in order to secure substantive justice, the delay in filing the claim petitions deserves to be condoned.

¶38

In view of the above, both the appeals are accepted. The impugned Award dismissing the claim petitions filed by the appellants is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal for decision afresh according to law on merits by ignoring the delay in filing the claim petitions and affording full opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.

¶39

The parties through their respective counsel are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 25.2.2012.

¶40

4.1.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE

Dhanpat Singh v. Jagjit Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanpat Singh v. Jagjit Singh & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Latif Vs Afsana and Ors.

Afsana and Ors. Vs Azad and Ors.

Bhoti Devi Vs Bir Singh

Sajjan Singh Vs Jagjit Singh & Ors.

Amarjit Singh Vs Abohar-Bhalwalpur Purasharti Coop. Tpt. & Ors.

Harmeet Kaur Vs Manpreet Singh