Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.@mdashFA.O. Nos. 1044 and 1046 of 1991 are being disposed of by a common judgment as they have arisen out of common award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala, dated 20.2.1991.
2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala, vide its award dated 20.2.1991 dismissed two claim petitions bearing Nos. 27(1) and 27 of 1988 filed by Jodh Singh and Shalu Ram, respectively. In both these petitions, the claimants had sought compensation for the injuries suffered by them in the alleged accident. Ag- grieved against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala, the claimants have filed the present appeals praying for setting aside the award of the Tribunal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends with vehemence that the Tribunal had wrongly held that Car No. PCP-132 was not involvcd.in the accident and the claimants had not suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Car by Ravinder Singh, respondent. Counsel further contends that the claimants had given correct version of the incident but the same was rejected by the Tribunal without any cogent reason. It has also been argued that the appellants had suffered 25% disability, as such they were entitled to compensation.
4. The counsel for the respondents on the other hand, contend that the Tribunal had given categoric findings that the claimants had not suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Car No. PCP-132 and the car was not involved in the accident dated 30.6.1987.It has also been argued that the claim petitions were filed after the expiry of the period of limitation and the Tribunal had not condoned the delay. As such, no interference in the well reasoned findings of the Tribunal is called for.
5. After having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. As such, the appeals deserve to be dismissed.
6. The alleged accident according to the appellants had occurred on 30.6.1987 whereas the claim petitions were filed on 28.7.1988, i.e. after more than one year of the accident and the period of six months for filing the claim petitions had lapsed and there is a delay of more than six month which the claimants have not been able to explain satisfactorily. The only reason given for not submitting the claim petitions is that the claimants remained under treatment for some time and being illiterate could not file the same within limitation. Poverty and illiteracy are not sufficient grounds to condone the delay. The Courts have held repeatedly that in application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, each day''s delay has to be accounted for. Another aspect of the matter is that the D.D.R. was recorded after two months of the accident. The claimants while undergoing alleged treatment had not disclosed to the Doctor that they had sustained the injuries in accident.
7. In this view of the matter, both these appeals are dismissed being devoid of any merit.
