S.R. Misra, J. - (1.) U.P. State Road Trans. Corpn. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') has filed this writ petition challenging the order of IIIrd Additional District Judge, Jaunpur, passed as the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, who has condoned the delay in filing the claim petition, after recording reasons of the same and directed the office of the District Judge, Jaunpur, for presenting it for registration according to law. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1993, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Anari Devi will be treated to be the leading case and the disposal of this writ petition will be the disposal of the remaining five cases where common questions of law and facts are involved and it is not necessary to make mention of all the facts of the other cases.
(2.) The claimant filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IIIrd Additional District Judge, Jaunpur), alleging that Saheb Dayal had died in an accident while travelling in bus No. 3157 on 8.2.1978 and claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation. Along with the claim petition an application was also filed for condonation of delay under Section 110-A (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the said application was numbered as Misc. Case No. 134 of 1986. Objection was also filed on behalf of the Corporation.
(3.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner who has attacked the order of the Claims Tribunal dated 15.4.1993, condoning the delay in presenting the application, mainly on the following grounds: (1) Under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the limitation for filing an application for condonation of delay is 6 months and the Claims Tribunal has further power to condone the delay of 6 months in case sufficient cause has been shown for not moving application in time but the claim petition after the expiry of one year cannot be entertained. According to the petitioner that since the application has been entertained after an expiry of one year the order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous. (2) In view of the enforcement of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the proceedings should be governed under the new Act and not under Act of 1939. (3) That the benefit of repeal law was not available to the claimants solely because the cause of action for the claim arose before the repeal. (4) In any case sufficient cause has not been shown for condonation of delay as the Claims Tribunal without discussing this aspect of the matter has condoned the delay. (5) Provisions of Section 6 of the Limitation Act be invoked where an application for compensation is filed if the minor has attained the majority. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 3 was still a minor when the claim petition was filed, as such, on this ground also the proceedings were not maintainable.;