JUDGMENT
M.M. Qazi, J.
1 The appellants have challenged the Award dated 27th July, 1984 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Nagpur, rejecting the claim of the appellants for compensation.
2. Deceased Louis Coutinho was the son of the appellants Nos. 1 and 2. There is no dispute that he met with an accident with truck No. MHG 2866 on 26-5-1980 which belongs to Shambehari (respondent No. 2) and died almost instantaneously on the spot. The appellants who are the heirs of the deceased submitted their claim before the Tribunal on 18-12-1980. The written statement was filed by the Insurance Company i.e., the New India Insurance Company Limited, Kingsway, Nagpur (Respondent No. 3) on 12-12-1981. The written statement was also filed by one Gangaprasad who was non-applicant No. 2, the alleged owner, before the Tribunal, on 9-12-1982 contending that he was not the owner of the aforesaid truck and that it was Shambehari who was the owner. The evidence came to be recorded on 8-12-1983 and arguments were heard on 9-12-1983. On the same date, the appellants filed an application for amendment that the name of Gangaprasad be deleted and instead the name of Shambehari, the respondent No. 1 was to be brought on record. The notice was issued to respondent No. 2 by the Court. He filed his reply on 27-6-1984 submitting the ownership of the truck but contended that the claim against him was barred by time and thereafter the impugned Award came to be passed on 27-7-1984 rejecting the entire claim of the appellants.
3. The claim has been rejected essentially on the grounds, namely, that the real owner was not the party before the Tribunal and secondly that it was not proved that the deceased met with an accident with Truck No. MHG 2866 and hence this appeal.
4. The finding that the deceased did not met with an accident with the truck bearing No. MHG-2866 is obviously perverse. Suffice it to quote the following observations made by the learned Tribunal in the order :—
“Issue Nos. 3 and 4:—there is no much dispute regarding the fact that the present accident was caused by the truck bearing No. MHG-2866.”
It may be mentioned here that respondent No. 3 did not dispute in his written statement that the deceased met with an accident with Truck No. MHG 2866. Having regard to these facts, it is not possible for us to sustain the above finding of the Tribunal.
5. It is true that there has been delay on the part of the appellants in filing an application for amendment for deleting the name of Gangaprasad and for substituting the name of the real owner. We have no doubt that the amendment application to this effect should have been filed by them on or after 9-2-1982 itself when Gangaprasad in his written statement disclosed the name of the owner. Shri Bhangde has invited our attention to the application for amendment in support of his contention that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is necessary that the delay may be condoned in the interest of Justice. It appears that the appellant No. 1 is an old man aged about 66 years and the appellant No. 2 who is his wife is an old lady being the mother, appellants Nos. 3 and 4, being the sister and brother of the deceased were minors.
6. Shri Bhangde has also invited our attention to the decision Jamuna Bai, appellant v. M. Appa Rao and others Respondents. He has particularly relied on the observations made by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in para 6, the portion which is material for our purposes reads as under:—
“For the victims of the motor vehicle accidents who are mostly ignorant, illiterate and whose number is ever growing it is not easy sometimes to trace and identify the vinculum juris and find out the true owner. Parliament has therefore given power to the Claim Tribunals to entertain applications for compensation even after the statutory period of six months provided that there are sufficient causes that prevented a claim being made within the period of six months. In this case the Tribunal found and I entirely agree with those findings that the claimant came to know the real owner only when the Insurance Policy was filed into the Court by the Insurer. It is no doubt true that the Insurance Company hinted at misjoinder or non-joinder of parties in its counter. But it is unfortunate that the claimant’s lawyer missed the hint. The claimant came to know of the real owner only after the insurance policy was filed into Court and thereafter took steps to add the real owner as a party respondent. I think this is a case where the Claims Tribunal acting under the aforesaid proviso to Clause (3) of section 110-A of the Act rightly entertained the application though filed beyond six months of the occurrence of accident.”
Shri Bhangade has contended that the appellant No. 1 is almost illiterate person and is employed as a cook. Besides this, it appears to be a very hard case where the appellants have to suffer because of the mistake of their Counsel who may seem to have missed the fact disclosed in the written statement on 9-2-1982 and perhaps may have noticed the same only at the time of recording the evidence. Having regard to the facts, we think that it would be expedient to condone the delay and allow the application for amendment and quash the order dated 11-7-1984 (sic) passed by the Tribunal rejecting the same.
7. In view of this, the matter will have to be remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh decision according to law. The petition is allowed and the award is set aside with no order as to costs.