9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Application for compensation dismissed on a preliminary ground by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. - Whether the applicant attained majority at the time of the accident. - Whether the minority of the applicants is a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Analysis: The appeal was against the dismissal of the compensation application by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal based on a preliminary ground. The applicants claimed they were minors at the time of the accident, with one of them attaining majority after the incident and filing the claim within two months of becoming a major. The Tribunal framed two preliminary issues: the attainment of majority by the applicant and whether minority could be a sufficient cause for delay. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellants on the first issue but dismissed the claim petition citing that the minority of the appellants was not a sufficient cause for condonation of delay under the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant's counsel argued that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act should apply, excluding the time the appellant remained a minor. Additionally, it was contended that since all applicants were minors, the delay deserved to be condoned under the proviso to Section 110-A (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The counsel also relied on a previous judgment for support. The interpretation of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act was crucial in determining the applicability of Section 6 for excluding the time the appellant was a minor. The court analyzed the definition of "suit" under the Limitation Act and its broader meaning under the Code of Civil Procedure. It concluded that an application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act should be considered a suit, thus attracting the provisions of Section 6 of the Limitation Act. In a previous Division Bench judgment, it was noted that the word "suit" could have a wide connotation, encompassing legal proceedings to enforce civil rights. The court, referring to another case, emphasized that a claim petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, though not a plaint technically, was akin to a plaint and pertained to a dispute triable in a civil court. Therefore, the court held that the appellant, who was a minor at the time of the accident, was entitled to the benefit of Section 6 of the Limitation Act, rendering the application timely. Consequently, the Tribunal's conclusions were set aside, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. The appellants were awarded costs of the appeal, with counsel's fees fixed at a specific amount.
|
