JUDGMENT
B.A. Khan, J.
1. Has Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu wrongly rejected appellant’s application for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition? This is the only question that falls for determination in this appeal.
2. A Military vehicle was damaged in an accident as a result of collision with a Civil Truck on December 28, 1986. Appellant went through its own procedural exercise for claiming compensation and at one stage referred the matter to Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. D. P. Gupta, who advised that claim petition would not lie before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Not satisfied with this, the matter was placed before Additional Counsel who gave the green signal on Oct. 15, 1987.
But despite this claim petition was filed on Dec. 23, 1987.
3. Tribunal has considered this delay as fatal and has held the petition time barred. Appellant feels that it was not justified in doing so. That in short is the controversy.
4. Mr. Bhargava contends that liberal construction is required to be given to the expression “sufficient cause”. According to him time taken in obtaining necessary sanction from the Army Head-Quarters was required to be condoned and Tribunal has erred by not doing so.
5. There can be no dispute with the proposition that expression “sufficient cause” used in the statute is required to be interpreted liberally. But that cannot be construed to mean that Tribunal should ignore and overlook the negligence, inaction and want of bona fide by a party wanting to invoke its jurisdiction. A claimant is expected to be prompt and vigilant in persuing his cause, Therefore, it all depends upon circumstances of a case, where the cause advanced by the party can be said to be really beyond its control preventing him from approaching Tribunal within the time prescribed, Courts take a liberal view and condone the delay but where it is found that a party condones lacks in bona fides, he must suffer for his in action. In any case no hard and fast rule can be laid down according to which Courts must exercise their discretion in this field. So long as the satisfaction reached by a Court is objective and based on sound reasoning, it cannot be faulted or interfered with.
6. Motor Vehicles Act is a self-contained statute, it prescribes six months time to file a claim petition. Beyond that it is for the Tribunal to feel satisfied and entertain the claim. It is the domain of Tribunal to be or not to be satisfied. Its satisfaction can be gone into only if it is derived perversely and arbitrarily. The relevant provision reads as under:–
“Provided that the claims Tribunal may entertain the application after expiry of said period of six months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time.”
In the new Section 166, Tribunal is barred from entertaining any application filed after 12 months.
7. In the present case, I don’t think that Tribunal has erred on any count. It has recorded its satisfaction on sound reasoning. I do not propose to go into factual metrix again to point out that appellant had not been all that vigilant in persuing the matter. Time taken in obtaining sanction from Army Head-Quarters can’t constitute sufficient cause in all cases, more so in the present case where it was intended to file a claim from day one.
8. Therefore, considering totality of the circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. This appeal is accordingly rejected. Record be returned to the Tribunal concerned.