IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1334 of 1991 Date of decision: 18th November, 2008 Kumari Shyamwati … Appellant Versus Devi Dutt and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: None for the appellant. Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate along with Mr. S.P. Sharma, Deputy Manager (Legal), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for respondent No. 4. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) In the present case, claim petition has been filed by Kumari Shyamwati alias Shyam daughter of Kidar Nath through her mother and natural guardian Smt. Sharbati wife of Kidar Nath. Appellant claimant was a passenger in a bus No.HRU 8427. She was traveling along with Mam Raj, Sarup Nath, Kidar Nath. She had boarded the bus along with co-passengers at 6.45 p.m. from bus stand Palwal for going to village Arua. When the bus reached near village Arua at about 8.00 p.m. and when appellant claimant alighted along with her co- passengers, all of a sudden, rashly and negligently, driver had put the bus in motion, due to which appellant claimant fell down from the front door of the bus and received multiple injuries on her person. FAO No.1334 of 1991 Appellant claimant went to Police Station Chhainsa along with Mam Raj, Sarup Nath and Kidar Nath. A report was lodged. She got herself medically examined and it was claimed that she spent Rs.30,000/- on her treatment. She also claimed Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held that appellant claimant had received injuries in the accident and the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of Devi Dutt driver. PW-5 Dr. A.C. Yadav, Medical Officer had examined the appellant claimant on 3rd September, 1989 at 1.00 p.m. Four injuries were found on her person. It was opined that all injuries were simple. According to medico-legal report, she has suffered three abrasions and one lacerated wound. Kidar Nath had stated that he had spent Rs.5000/6000/- on special diet and transportation. The Tribunal held that appellant claimant is entitled to Rs.3,000/- for treatment and special diet and Rs.6,000/- towards pain and suffering. In all she was awarded Rs.9,000/-. However, the Tribunal held that in the present case, claim petition was filed on 30th July, 1990 whereas, the accident had taken place on 2nd September, 1989. Thus, there was a delay in filing the petition. Natural guardian, mother Sharbati had not appeared in the witness box to explain the delay, therefore, no compensation was awarded to the claimant. The Tribunal has held as under: “16. … … … … Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 states that no petition for any claim of compensation would be entered beyond period of six months of the accident but the Claims Tribunal was competent to accept the petition after the expiry of period of six months but not later than 12 months if it was satisfied that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from making the petition in time. The present petition has been filed by Kumari Shayamwati minor through her mother Sharbati. Sharbati has not come into the witness 2 FAO No.1334 of 1991 box to explain the circumstances under which the petition could not be filed within six months. Father of the petitioner had appeared as PW-6 but he has not stated a word as to why the petition could not be filed within time. In the absence of any evidence for the condonation of delay I hold that the petition is time barred. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the respondents against the petitioner.” Mr. Gupta appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has very fairly stated that since the injured was minor, therefore, his claim has been wrongly declined on the ground of limitation. Claimant Kumari Shyamwati, who was a minor girl of 15 years, had boarded a bus and received multiple injuries on her person. She had been examined by the Doctor. She received injuries on her head, shoulder and ribs. The doctor had opined that all the four injuries on her person were simple in nature. It was stated that she had spent Rs.500 – 600/- on her special diet. She was allowed Rs.3,000/- for treatment, medicine and special diet. She was further allowed Rs.6,000/-. In all she was allowed Rs.9,000/-. I have taken into consideration the fact that appellant claimant was 15 years old when the accident took place and was to attain the age of marriage in near future. Mr.D.P. Gupta, Advocate appearing along with Mr.S.P. Sharma, Deputy Manager (Legal), Oriental Insurance Company Limited, who were liable to pay, have stated that for the insurance policy issued before the year 1989, for a passenger, limited liability of insurer was Rs.15,000/- only. Appellant claimant had only suffered four minor simple injuries. Therefore, she was rightly awarded Rs.9,000/- by the Tribunal, but the payment was not made as the claim petition was barred by time. 3 FAO No.1334 of 1991 Counsel for the Insurance Company states that he will accept the orders of this Court and will not challenge the same in case another amount of Rs.15,000/- is given in lumpsum. Rs.6,000/- is awarded as lumpsum interest on Rs.9,000/-, which was held due to the claimant. Since, it has been conceded by the Insurance Company that limitation shall not operate, therefore, Rs.15,000/- in lumpsum is paid to the claimant. Counsel for the Insurance Company has stated that he accepts the amount of Rs.15,000/- to be paid to the claimant and the payment shall be made within three months. With these observations, present appeal is disposed off. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 18, 2008 rps 4