R. Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This First Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by Prafulla Kumar Roy against the dismissal of his claim under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Krishnagar, Nadia. Along with this appeal an application under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed, in the alternative. The contesting parties are the owner of the offending vehicle, the driver of the same and the insurer.
(2.) The matter has come up before this court in the following circumstances : The claimant filed an application before the Claims Tribunal on 29-7-63 for compensation for the lass of his income and efficiency and also for other damages due to the injuries inflicted on his person by a Motor Vehicle, driven negligently and rashly on 13-5-63. The owner of the Motor Vehicle, a 'Tempo', the driver and the insurer were made opposite parties. On the objection filed by the opposite parties the claimant submitted a form giving particulars as required under the rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act and prayed that the same may be treated as a part of the original application as if filed along with the initial application. The opposite parties took objection to the claimant's prayer and the matter was heard by Mr. J.C. Chakraborty, District Judge, Nadia, presiding over the Claims Tribunal on 11-7-66. The learned Judge considered the facts and allowed the belated submission of the prescribed form by way of amendment of the original petition for claims treating the said form as a part of the petition filed on 29-7-63. Subsequently, however, the opposite party No. 1 filed on 7-7-67 a petition before Mr. D.C. Chakraborty, the successor-in-office of Mr. J.C. Chakraborty for hearing of a preliminary issue on the point of limitation of the claim on the ground that the claim petition was time barred. The matter was heard on 31-7-67 and Mr. D.C. Chakraborty found that the prescribed form was not filed within 60 days from the date of the accident and the claim was thus barred by limitation. He, therefore, dismissed the claim of the claimant. Against that order the instant appeal has been preferred.
(3.) Mr. Mrinmoy Bagchi learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Nirmal Chandra Choudhury for the opposite party respondent No. 1. Mr. Premangshu Chatterjee appears for opposite party-respondent No. 2 and Mr. Ashoke Kumar Sen Gupta is the learned Advocate for opposite party-respondent No. 3.;