- (1.) THIS is an appeal filed by Makhan Singh and his minor children, against the order dated 1st May, 1969, of Mr. Gurbachan Singh, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana, dismissing their application under Section 110 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for grant of compensation holding that the application was barred by limitation.
(2.) THE facts of this case are Mrs. Rasham Kaur wife of Makhan Singh Petitioner and Rup Rani sister of Resham Kaur, were going in a, rickshaw on 8th July, 1967 near the District Courts at Ludhiana at about 2.30 p.m. when Truck No. PNF 5604 belonging to Messrs Kartar Goods Transport Company, Moga, driven by Gurpal Singh Respondent came from the side of Kailash Cinema. It is alleged that the truck was driven by the driver rashly and negligently and it ran into the rickshaw in which Mrs. Resham Kaur and Mrs. Rup Rani were going and they were run over by the truck and died at the spot. Makhan Singh, the husband of Resham Kaur and Petitioner, Appellant 2 to 8 who are minor children of Makhan Singh and Resham Kaur, filed an application on 22nd February, 1968 under Section 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of Rs. 30,000/ - as compensation on the allegations that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by Gurpal Singh, Respondent No. 1 and, therefore the driver of the truck and its owner Messrs Kartar Goods Transport Company, Moga, Respondent No. 2 were liable to pay compensation. The application was also filed against the insurance Company, with whom this truck was insured, but its name was not known to the Petitioners. An objection was raised by the office that the petition was barred by limitation, but inspite of this the case was registered and notices were issued to the Respondents 1 and 2. The Respondents did not appear inspite of the service and, therefore, they were proceeded ex parte. The learned Claims Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that the accident took place on 8th July, 1967 and this application, which was filed on 22nd July, 1968, was barred by limitation, and he dismissed the same, feeling dissatisfied the Petitioners have filed this appeal to set aside the order of the Tribunal.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Appellants Mr. G.S. Chawla, contended that the office had raised an objection that the petition was barred by time, but the Claims Tribunal registered this petition and issued notices to the Respondents, and therefore, he must be deemed to have condoned the delay in filing the petition, and in support of this contention he relied on Rule 4 and 5 of the Punjab Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1964, framed by the Punjab Government, according to which when the application under Sections 110 -A of the Motor Vehicles Act, is barred by time, the Claims Tribunal can dismissed the same summarily. This contention is devoid of force and must be rejected.;