Muni Lal Verma, J. - (1.) THE circumstances, giving rise to this appeal, may be, briefly, stated as under:
(2.) SUNDER Singh died on March 17, 1970, due to an accident which he had met with Tempo No. PUP -376(hereinafter called the Tempo). The Tempo was driven by lshar Singh Respondent. It belonged to Devi Dass Respondent. Therefore, on October 3, 1970, the Appellant moved an application before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter called the Tribunal), for claiming compensation on account of the death of Sunder Singh. It was alleged that the aforesaid accident, resulting in his death, was due to rash and negligent driving of the Tempo by lshar Singh, and Mrs. Shanti Devi was the widow, Mohinder Singh and Satnam Singh were the sons and Balbir Kaur, Surinder Kaur, and Jinder were his daughters. The claim of the Appellant was contested by lshar Singh and Devi Dass. The factum of accident and also the death of Sunder Singh due to it were not disputed. The other material allegations were traversed by the Respondents and it was pleaded that the claim was barred by time. The Tribunal framed four issues, out of which issue No. 3 reads as follows: Whether the claim application is barred by limitation? Finding the said issue in the affirmative, the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the Appellants. Hence, they have come to this Court in appeal. 3. It not disputed that the period prescribed for the claim application was six months from the date of accident. The accident took place on March 17, 1970, and the claim application was made on October 3, 1970, admittedly after the expiry of the aforesaid period of six months. Mr. M.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the Appellants, has contended that the District Judge, Patiala, had been constituted as the Tribunal under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and as the Court of the District Judge, Patiala, was closed during the month of September on account of summer vacation and 1st and 2nd October were public holidays, allowance for the days from September 17, 1970 to October 2, 1970 (both days inclusive) should be made and the claim application should be treated as presented within time, and four of the Appellants, viz. the daughters of Sunder Singh, were minor and, as such, the claim petition could not be held to be barred by time as against them. His contention that allowance for the period from September 17, 1970 to October 2, 1970, should be made because the civil Courts, including that of the District Judge Patiala, who had been constituted as the Tribunal, had been closed, is supported by Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal and Anr. v. Smt. Mannabai and Ors. : 1967 A.C.J. 214. Since the Court of the District Judge, Patiala, had been closed during the month of September on account of summer vacation, the Appellants or even their counsel could entertain a mistaken belief that the claim application could not be made to the Tribunal, who, as indicated above, was the District Judge, Patiala, during the month of September, 1970. 1st and 2nd October, 1970, were public holidays. Therefore, the said belief of the Appellants or their counsel could have prevented them from presenting the claim application in the month of September, 1970, and the same in my opinion constitutes a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in presenting the claim application. It is in evidence from Gurjit Singh (A.W.3). Mohinder Singh (A.W.4) and Surinder Kaur (A.W.5) that all the four daughters of Sunder Singh, viz., Balbir Kaur, Raj and Jinder, were minor at the time of accident and also at the time when the claim application was made. Their statements to that effect were not challenged during cross -examination and their is no rebuttal of the same. So, I have on reason to disbelieve them. As soon as it is held, as I do, that the aforesaid four daughters of the Appellant were minor at the time when the claim application was made, the question of their claim being barred by time does not arise.
(3.) IT , thus, follows from the discussion above that the landings of the Tribunal on issue No. 3, that the claim application was barred by time, cannot be maintained and reversing the finding I would hold under that issue that the claim application was not barred by time. In that view of the matter, the appeal succeeds. Consequently, I allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal dismissing the claim application and send the case back to the Tribunal for its decision on merits. The parties have been directed, through their counsel, to appeal before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the District Judge) Patiala, on November 20, 1974. The costs of the appeal will abide the result of the claim application.;