THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.801 of 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, in I.A.No.777 of 1990 in I.A.No.399 of 1990 in O.P.SR.No.2692 of 1990. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC for the second respondent. The appellant filed a petition under Section 151 and Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 {CPC}, praying the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal {District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry} to set aside the order dated 03.09.1990 dismissing I.A.No.390 of 1990 in O.P.SR.No.2692 of 1990. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal may be stated as follows. The appellant filed a petition before the Tribunal below under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act {Old Act} {“the Act” for brevity} claiming compensation of Rs.30,000/- in respect of the injuries sustained by him in the accident, wherein the vehicle of the Corporation-second respondent was involved. There occurred delay of 57 days in filing the said petition. Therefore, he filed I.A.No.390 of 1990 under Section 110-A (3) of the Act and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking to condone the delay of 57 days in filing the petition, for compensation. The petition was stoutly opposed by the second respondent- Corporation contending that the appellant had already filed O.P.No.11 of 1990 under Section 110-A of the Act claiming compensation for the alleged injuries sustained in the very same motor vehicle accident and that he cannot file another O.P. in respect of the same accident. It was further contended that insofar as O.P.No.11 of 1990 is concerned, it was already filed by the appellant has been pending on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry and as such the delay of 57 days in filing the petition in respect of the very same injury cannot be condoned. Subsequently, the advocate appearing for the appellant in the lower Court in O.P.No.11 of 1990 filed a memo stating that O.P.No.11 of 1990 may be dismissed to pursue I.A.No.390 of 1990 in O.P.SR.No.2692 of 1990. The said memo was filed on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, on 17.07.1990, whereas I.A.No.390 of 1990 was dismissed on 22.06.1990. In view of the memo filed before him withdrawing the O.P., the learned I Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry, dismissed O.P.No.11 of 1990 on 07.09.1990. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A.No.399 of 1990 under Order IX Rule 9 CPC and under Section 151 CPC to set aside the order dated 22.06.1990 passed in I.A.No.399 of 1990 and to restore the same to file. Learned District Judger observed in his order that in view of the unhealthy competition among the lawyers exclusively dealing with the motor vehicle cases wherein many instances had come to be noticed by him, that more than one lawyer filing compensation petitions in respect of claim arising out of the same accident and subsequently, the victim is made to elect his counsel keeping the lawyers in a delicate position. The learned District Judge, with a view to discourage the said practice, mentioned in his order that the petitioner had already filed O.P.No.11 of 1990 within the period of limitation claiming compensation for injuries sustained in the same accident and it is not open for him to file another O.P. through some other advocate while the earlier matter was pending. Learned Judge also observed that the appellant herein had knowledge of filing of earlier O.P. on his behalf and thereafter, gave up his first advocate, who filed O.P.No.11 of 1990 on his behalf and had stuck up with the second advocate, who filed the subsequent O.P., with a delay condonation petition. Eventually, the learned District Judge declined to condone the delay and dismissed the petition. The order is under challenge in the present appeal. Now, the point for determination in this appeal is whether the order passed by the learned District judge/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is liable to be set aside in this appeal. Indisputably, the appellant is an illiterate person, who was aged about 57 years on the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal. Since the matter happened in the year 1990, one cannot expect an illiterate claimant to be well versed with the procedure involved in Court litigation. There are many instances in which the counsel and the advocates obtain signatures of the parties/claimants and file separate cases claiming compensation on behalf of the very same parties. As rightly observed by the learned District Judge, this unhealthy practice should be discouraged to keep up the dignity of the legal profession. At the same time, there is no denial of the fact that on account of the attitude of the advocates towards litigant public, which is unethical, the innocent litigants cannot be penalized and their rights cannot be put to jeopardy. In the present case, even if it is accepted that the appellant is aware of both the petitions, in view of the fact that he is a layman from village background, he cannot be expected to be aware of the legal consequences. What all he is expected to know is he filed cases claiming compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident. The Motor Vehicle Act insofar it relates to payment of compensation to the victims is beneficial legislation and keeping in view the plight of the claimants, more particularly, who come from village background, the amended Act had done away with the limitaion in filing the claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act and now, there is no time limit for filing the claim petitions. In my opinion, the idea is to protect the innocent claimants seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, in any event, for the strategies played by the legal practitioners, the victim/claimant shall not be made to suffer and their rights have to be adjudicated on merits. He cannot be put to hardship having recourse to hyper technical approach. Therefore, in my considered view, the learned District Judge ought to have allowed the application, more particularly in view of the fact that the appellant had only decided to prosecute only one claim petition filed by him and he never contemplated to claim compensation in two cases separately in respect of the same accident with a mala fide intention. The innocent claimants cannot be made to suffer in order to uphold the dignity of the legal profession. In view of the facts and circumstances, what are stated hereinabove, the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, East Godavari District, is set aside and the delay of 57 days in filing the petition is condoned. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, without any order as to costs. ________________ (R.KANTHA RAO, J) 5th December 2009 RRB