H.N. Seth, J. - (1.) THIS first appeal under Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against an order passed by the District Judge, Meerut dated 11 -10 -1968, acting as the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Meerut. By the impugned order the learned Judge held that the claim petition filed by the Appellants was barred by time.
(2.) AN accident by a motor vehicle in which one Mr. Hari Shanker Goel lost his life, took place on 21 -12 -1968. According to the claimants, in the month of April 1967 Mr. Bhagwat Dayal, father of the deceased, contacted Mr. Dharam Vir Premi and Mr. Jai Prakash Jain, Advocates, with a view to file a suit for damages against the owner of the vehicle. The two lawyers advised him that limitation for filing a suit for recovery of damages was, under the old Limitation Act, one year but under the act as amended such a suit could be filed within two years of the date of accident. Mr. Bhagwat Dayal, then gave certain instructions to his lawyers, who in the meantime sent notices to the owner of the vehicle. The claimants being simple persons did not contact their lawyers any further till 20 -12 -1967, when they contacted them for filing the suit. At this stage they were advised by their counsel that as Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Meerut had been constituted on 24 -4 -1967, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try such a suit would be barred. Accordingly Sri Bhagwat Dayal, got the claim petition drafted and filed it before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the same day. Sri Bhagwat Dayal, mentioned all these facts in the claim petition, and prayed that in the circumstances the claim made by him may be entertained, even though the same has been presented beyond six months of the accident. The application was opposed on behalf of the opposite parties, primarily on the ground that the advice given to the claimants by his lawyers did not appear to be bonafide, and that there was no reason as to why the claimants did not contact their counsel in between the month of April 1967 and December 1967 when they presented the claim petition. During the course of arguments before the Claims Tribunal, it was pointed out that the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sushma Mehta v. C.P. Transport Service : A.I.R. 1964 M.P. 133 and Dr. Om Prakash Misra v. National Insurance Co. : AIR 1964 MP 136, has held that in a case where the accident involving a motor vehicle took place prior to the constitution of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, a suit for recovery of damages for the loss sustained by reasons of such accident is maintainable. In the circumstances it cannot be said that advice given to Sri Bhagwat Dayal, by the two lawyers was not bonafide.
(3.) THE Claims Tribunal observed, that wrong advice given by a counsel could constitute a good ground for condoning the delay if it could be shown that the counsel had, in giving that advice, acted with due care and diligence. It pointed out that there were decision to the contrary by Madras, Bombay and Punjab High Courts, wherein it had been held that even in a case where the accident took place prior to constitution of Claims Tribunal, it is the Tribunal and not the civil court which will have jurisdiction to deal with the claim. It held that the advice given by the counsel ignoring the views of there High Courts did not appear to be bonafide and that no case for condoning the delay in presenting the claim petition had been made out.;