KHORBAHRIN BAI Vs. TULSA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly stated facts are that Khorbahrin Bai filed Claim Petition No. 17/85, which was dismissed on 31-8-88 for non-prosecution. The said claimant thereafter filed an application of restoration which was registered as MJC No. 8/88, this application was also dismissed for want of prosecution on 7-4-98 and she thereafter again filed an application which was registered as MJC No. 5/99, this was also dismissed on 21-9-99 for non-prosecution. Another application for restoration was filed, the same was registered as MJC No. 17/99 which was restored by order dated 20-4-2001. Before Claims Tribunal the application was also filed for condoning the delay and the grounds urged for condonation are that the applicant's husband died in an accident occurred in the year 1988 and she is very poor, old and infirm. At the time of accident she was 55 years of age, now she must be about 70 years old. She was somehow or the other passing her days by resorting to begging and she has no funds. This plea for condoning delay has been rejected by impugned order dated 4-1-2002.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the applicant so also Amicus Curiae submit that the provisions envisaged in the Act are benevolent provisions and in fact in the present case though the claimant is entitled to get even the amount of no fault liability, yet she has not received a single pie. Para 10 of the impugned order has been referred to, which goes to show that service of notice by publication was directed to be made. So far as this aspect is concerned, the Tribunal ought to have considered the provisions envisaged in Sections 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is submitted that so far as the claims are concerned, Sub-section (4) of Section 166 of the Act even gives jurisdiction to the Claims Tribunal. Section 166 of the Act is pertinent and quoted herein below:--

(3.) Counsel for the applicant also referred to Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act especially first proviso. Section 168 reads as under :--