Chhogalal vs Government of Madhya Pradesh and Another

S.S. Sharma, J.—This appeal u/s 110 (D) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is directed against the order dated 10-5-1974 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, whereby the claim petition filed u/s 110-A of the said Act was dismissed as being barred by limitation.

The accident resulting into the death of Hiralal who was the father of the Appellant-applicant took place on 20.9.1971. This claim-petition dated 15 5.1972 was sent by registered post and was received in the office of the Tribunal on 16.5.1972. The claimant in paragraph 11 of his petition inter alia pleaded exclusion of two months'' time of statutory notice u/s 80 of the CPC served on the government. Subsequently, an application dated 7.5.1974 was also submitted on behalf of the applicant for condonation of delay. The ground taken was that a notice u/s 80 of C.P.C. was served on the government. This application was supported even by an affidavit. There is no dispute to the fact that if two months period of notice u/s 80 of CPC is excluded then the claim-petition was within limitation. In the written statement filed on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh the fact of notice u/s 80 of C.P.C. having been served, has been admitted. The controversy about the necessity of a notice u/s 80 of CPC before filing a claim petition u/s 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act was settled by the Full Bench of this Court in Mangilal Ganpat Vs. The Union of India (UOI), A Division Bench of this Court had referred the question whether notice u/s 80 of CPC is necessary for an application for compensation when filed u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Full Bench by its decision dated 18.4.1973 answered this question saying that a notice u/s 80 of CPC is not necessary for an application for compensation when filed u/s 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act before a Claims Tribunal constituted under the Act. It is clear that the question about the necessity of notice prior to its being settled by the Full Bench in Mangilal Ganpat Vs. The Union of India (UOI), case was a debatable one.

It also is not disputed that the Tribunal has a power to entertain the application for compensation even after the prescribed period of limitation if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. The Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter and rejected the application on the ground that the notice u/s 80 of CPC being not necessary, the claim petition is barred by time. It further seems to have been obsessed by the fact that the application for condonation of delay was submitted at a slight later stage although in between that period no progress in that case had been made. The words ''sufficient cause'' should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence, nor inaction, nor want of bona fides is imputable to the party concerned. It cannot be denied that the delay in filing this claim-petition was entirely on the ground that it was felt that a notice u/s 80 of C.P.C, was a necessity. Prior to the Full-Bench decision in Mangila case the question was not free from difficulty. This position was set at rest Mong after the accident in question.

Learned Government Advocate for the Respondents could not point out any circumstance or reason to negative Appellant''s claim for condonation of delay. Merely because the claimant did not file any application for condonation of delay alongwith his claim-petition, would hardly be a ground to reject that application. As against that it is clear that this application was submitted after when the controversy was set at rest in Mangilal Ganpat Vs. The Union of India (UOI), . Thus, in my opinion, the applicant-Appellant had made out sufficient cause for not filing the claim-petition within the statutory period of limitation, i.e., six months and the delay deserves to be condoned.

Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.5.1974 is set-aside. The application dated 7.5.1974 filed on behalf of the applicant-Appellant is allowed and the delay in filing the claim-petition stands condoned. As a result of this, the case is sent back to the Tribunal for proceeding with it in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs of this appeal which shall be borne by the parties as incurred.