D.S. Tewatia, J. - (1.) APPELLANT Kehar Singh was serving as Reader to Shri I.P. Vasisht, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagadhri when on 2nd September, 1970, he met with an accident with truck No. HRA 5546, which was owned by Om Pal Singh and Jag -dish Pal Singh and was insured with Ruby General Insurance Company. At the time of the accident it was driven by Sukhdev Singh. The appellant sustained injuries in the said accident and claimed Rs. 55,000/ -by way of damages in his application dated 23rd April, 1971. The Tribunal dismissed the application as time barred and consequently disallowed the claim vide his order dated 11th November, 1971. Present appeal is directed against this order.
(2.) THE accident had taken place at 6.45 P.M. and the appellant was admitted to Civil Hospital Jagadhri, on the same date at about 8 00 P.M. He was medically examined by Dr. B.R. Sood, P.W. 2. on the request of the police and he found on his person the following injuries : - - 1. Confusion 1 1/2"x1" on left side of the fore -head. 2. CONTUSION 4"x2" on the right clavical region with inability to move his arm and pain. Complaint of pain in chest with difficulty in breathing. 3. LACERATED wound V shape 1 ¼"x ¼" on the outer aspect of right fore -arm near the wrist joint. 4. THREE abrasions in an area 1"x 1 ¼" on the dorsal surface of the right hand. Three small sized abrasions on the back of right elbow joint. 5. LACERATED wound 3/4"x ¼" skin deep on the back of left forearm in its middle. 6. LACERATED wound 1/2"x ¼" skin deep on the back of left forearm 1" above injury No. 7. Abrasion with contusion 4"x2" on the back of left elbow joint. 10' Abrasion 2 1/2"xl" on the back of left arm in its middle. 11. Contusion 10"X 6" on the front of left leg in its middle. 12. Abrasion 18"x7" on the back of chest "
(3.) THE right clavical bone, left tibia and fibula were found fractured and were pat under plaster. He remained in the Hospital till 18th September, 1970. Plaster was removed after 1 1/2 months of its application. The appellant was advised rest from time to time after a check up of his bones. The appellant got his leave extended from time to time and was on leave upto 30th June, 1971. His every application but one for extension of leave was accompanied by a medical certificate. The application dated 22nd February, 1971, seeking extension of leave from 1st March, 1971 to 30th April, 1971, was the one which was not accompanied by a medical certificate but the subsequent application, which was the last one, dated 17th April, 1971, was accompanied by the following certificate : Certified that I have examined Shri Kehar Singh and is advised rest for two months with effect from today. The medical evidence examined on behalf of the appellant no doubt reveals that the appellant was not in a position even on the date on which the claim application was filed to move even with the aid of crutches but the question arises whether that Would be a sufficient justification for not filing the claim application in time. The claim application was filed after a delay of more than one month. Personal presence of the claimant is not needed for filing the application. The application could have been sent through registered post or through a courier. In fact, the claim application in this case was filed by the appellant through a courier i.e. his son -in -law. If the personal presence for filing the application is not required as the case here is then in my opinion mere inability to move on foot by itself would not be sufficient cause for condonation of the delay unlets incapacity to move was such as to prevent the person even from going as far as the nearest post office, and then too only if the aid of courier was not available.;