Muni Lal Verma, J. - (1.) THE material facts, which gave rise to this appeal and F.A.O. No. 50 of 1969, may be briefly stated as under:
(2.) BUS PNT 5827 (hereinafter called the bus) belonged to the Appellant. Raghbir Chand (Respondent No. 3) was employed by the Appellant as driver. On December 8, 1966, he drove the bus from the side of Narwana towards Patiala. At about 2 p.m. he reached Samana which fell in the way and drove the bus at a very high speed within the limits of Samana in the locality which had shops. Kuldip Singh appeared there on a cycle from the link road which proceeded from the Mandi Samana, and when he was crossing the road, Raghbir Chand without blowing any horn or taking any care or caution struck the bus against the said cycle, as a result of which Kuldip Singh was knocked down and his head was crushed under the wheel of the bus. He died at the spot. The bus dragged the cycle and could be stopped at a distance of about thirty feet from the scene of accident. Darshan Singh (Respondent No. 1) is the father and Mrs. Mohinder Kaur (Respondent No. 2) is the mother of Kuldip Singh, who was more than sixteen years and was working as Mechanic Apprentice in the Janta Engineering Works at Samana. He was then receiving Rs. 80/ - per month as his wages. Therefore, Darshan Singh and Mrs. Mohinder Kaur moved an application in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Chandigarh (here in after referred to as the Tribunal, claiming Rs. 60,000/ - as compensation for the death of Kuldip Singh from the Appellant and Raghbir Chand alleging that the accident resulting in his death was due to negligence of Raghbir Chand in driving the bus in the course of his employment under the Appellant. The said petition was resisted by the Appellant. The factum of the accident was admitted and he has not denied that the bus belonged to the Appellant and Raghbir Chand was its driver and he was driving the bus in the course of his employment under the Appellant ; or that Kuldip Singh was the son of Darshan Singh. The other material allegations were controverter and the case was tried by the Tribunal on the following issues: 1. Was the accident due to any negligent act on the part of the driver of the vehicle involved ? 2. What should be the quantum of compensation due if any and from whom to whom ? Relief. The Tribunal answered issue No. 1 in the affirmative and held under issue No. 2 that Darshan Singh and Mrs. Mohinder Kaur were entitled to claim Rs. 14,400/ -from the Appellant and Rajghbir Chand. As a result of the said findings, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 14,400/ - to them with costs and future interest at the rate of Rs. 6/ - per cent per annum, against the Appellant and Raghbir Chand. Aggrieved by the said result, the Appellant has come to this Court in appeal. 3. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, Darshan Singh and Mrs. Mohinder Kaur filed F.A.O. No. 50 of 1969 for enhancement of the same. Since both these appeals have arisen out of one case, the same are being disposed of by one judgment.
(3.) ACCORDING to Section 110 -D (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the Act), the appeal could be preferred within ninety days from the date of the award. The impugned award is dated as July 8, 1968. This appeal (F.A.O. No. 66 of 1969) was filed on May 21, 1969. Therefore, the Appellant moved application under Sections 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. According to the Appellant, the Tribunal reserved the award and passed order on May 15, 1968 that the award would be conveyed to the parties but the award was never conveyed to it (the Appellant). It was further stated by the Appellant in the aforesaid application that application for certified copy of the award was made to the Tribunal on July 27, 1968, that the Tribunal was thereafter abolished on August 8, 1968 and the Appellant was never informed about the place from where the certified copy could be obtained. The records of the case were ultimately transferred to the Court of the District Judge who was constituted as Tribunal at Patiala, and it was on May 15, 1969 when the certified copy of the award was delivered from the office of the District Judge, Patiala to the Legal Assistant of the Appellant. Therefore, the Appellant claimed condonation of delay for the period from July 27, 1968 to May 15,1969. It is evident from the note recorded on the certified copy of the award that the application for the said copy was made to the office of the Tribunal at Chandigarh on July 27, 1968 and the said application was received in the office of the District Judge, Patiala on February, 4, 1969 and the certified copy was delivered to the Appellant on May 15, 1969. There is nothing on record to show that the Appellant had been informed about the award or its announcement. Since the application for certified copy of the award was made by the Appellant on July 27, 1968, it is legitimate to presume that it (the Appellant) had come to know about the award on July 27, 1968, or earlier. Since the provision contained in Sub -section (1) of section 110D of the Act provides specifically that the period of ninety days will run from the date of the award, I do not think that the learned Counsel for the Appellant was right in contending that the said period in the case in hand could run from the date of knowledge of the Appellant about, the award. The Appellant, as indicated above, applied for certified copy of the award on July 27, 1968 in the office of the Tribunal at Chandigarh. The said Tribunal was abolished on August 8, 1968 and here is nothing to show that the Appellant had ever been informed that after its abolition, the Tribunal had been constituted at Patiala, or that the application moved by it on July 27, 1968 had been sent to the Tribunal at Patiala. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, no fault can be attributed to the Appellant for not obtaining certified copy of the award from the office of the District Judge (Tribunal) at Paliala till May 15, 1969. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I find that it was beyond the control of the Appellant to have obtained certified copy of the award before May 15, 1969. So, the period from July 27, 1968 to February 22, 1969 when certified copy of the award had been prepared has to be excluded on account of the same being requisite for obtaining the said copy under Section 12 of the Limitation Act. The delay for the period from February 22, 1969 to May 15, 1969 for not obtaining the delivery of the certified copy has to be condoned on the ground of sufficient cause for the reason that the Appellant was never informed that the application for certified copy of the award had been transferred from Chandigarh to Patiala, or that certified copy of the award would be delivered to it from Patkda. Proviso to Sub -section (1) of Section 110 D of the Act is to the effect that an appeal can be entertained after expiry of the period of ninety days if it is shown that the Appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. In the circumstances, referred to above, the Appellant was, in my opinion, prevented from filing the appeal within ninety days because he was never informed that the certified copy would be delivered to it at Patiala and it did not obtain the same before May 15, 1969. So, I allow the application (Civil Miscellaneous No. 2602 A of 1969) and condone the delay. As soon as allowance is made for the period from July 27, 1968 to May 15, 1969, as I do, the conclusion is inescapable that the appeal was filed within time.;