- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the injured claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 18th January, 1990 passed by the VI Addl. District Judge, Aligarh acting as Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal rejected the appellant's Case No. 168 of 1985 for the award of damages.
(2.) The appellant's case was that on 1.6.1984 he boarded a bus belonging to the respondent-Delhi Transport Corporation for travelling from Aligarh to Ghaziabad. The said bus collided with a parked truck No. UHI-4182. The accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the truck and the claimant's right hand was seriously injured. He filed the claim petition on 23.8.1985. The period of limitation prescribed for preferring a claim was six months from the date of the accident. Finding that the claim was barred by time an application for condonation of delay was moved under Section 110-A(3) read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It was contended in the application that the applicant was admitted to Malkhan Singh Hospital at Aligarh where an acquaintance, namely, Mr. S.P. Singh, Advocate, Collectorate, Aligarh came to see him and he told the applicant that the driver of the vehicle is criminally liable as well as for civil damages alongwith Opposite Party No. 1 and he further advised that the time for filing of Civil damages was three years from the date of the accident and assured the applicant that he would file suit for damages against the Opposite Parties and launch criminal proceedings against Opposite Party No. 1. The claimant had examined himself and the said S.P. Singh in support of the aforesaid allegations and claim for entertaining the claim after the expiry of the period of limitation. The Court below decided the matter on all the issues and on the question of limitation it has held that the explanation given for the delay in the filing of the claim petition was not satisfactory and, therefore, held that the claim was barred by time.
(3.) In the present appeal the only point that is urged is that this finding of the Court below on issue No. 5 was erroneous and after setting aside the same the matter be remitted back to the Tribunal as it has not quantified the damages to be awarded to the claimant, although it has held that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the bus in which the applicant was travelling.;