( 1 ) THE questions which arise for the consideration of the Court in the present public interest litigation are; whether a police officer, who has recorded information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person, or, who has prepared report under Sec. 158 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should be directed to forward a copy of the same to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter; and, wherther the Claims Tribunal should be directed to treat any information or report forwarded to it by police officer as an application for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ? ("act" for short ).

( 2 ) MR. Shankarbhai L. Suchday, Notary, District of Kachchh as well as m/s. Rajesh Premjibhai Thacker and Urmish S. Suchday, learned Advocates, practising at Bhuj-Kachchh, have addressed a letter dated September 16, 1994 to the Honble Chief Justice, Gujarat High Court pointing out that an application for compensation under Sec. 166 (3) of the Act has to be filed within a period of six months and after coming into force of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, delay for a longer period than six months cannot be condoned. It is further stated in the said letter that in view of the provisions of Sec. 158 (6) of the Act it is made obligatory for the officer in-charge of the police station to forward a copy of the information recorded regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person or a report prepared under Sec. 158 of the Act to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer; whereas a Claims Tribunal has been given discretion to treat a copy of report filed by the police officer as if it were an application for compensation under the Act. Under the circumstances, the learned advocates have prayed the Honble Chief Justice to issue necessary directions to the Inspector General of Police, Gujarat State for implementation of salutary provisions contained in Sec. 158 (6) of the Act and direct the Claims Tribunal to treat the report that may be submitted by Police Officer as an application for compensation suo-motu.

( 3 ) IN exercise of inherent powers, the High Court directed to treat the letter of Shri S. L. Suchday, Notary, District Kachchh addressed to the Honble Chief justice, Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad as writ petition. Pursuant to the said directions, letter has been treated as Special Civil Application instituted under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The matter was placed for admission hearing on September 30, 1994. Mr. A. R. Mehta, learned Counsel was requested to appear in the petition as amicus curiae and Office was directed to supply a copy of petition to learned Counsel Mr. Mehta. After hearing the submissions of Mr. Mehta, rule was issued making it returnable on October 18, 1994.

( 4 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The period of limitation for filing Claim Petition both - under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was six months prior to coming into force of the motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act No. 54 of 1994 ). Difference in two acts was in regard to provisions relating to condonation of delay. In view of Proviso to sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the maximum period of delay which could have been condoned was six months. There was no restriction in the old Act so far as power to condone delay was concerned. (See : Vinod Gurudas raikar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. , AIR 1991 SC 2156 ).

( 5 ) IN order to decide the points arising in the petition, it would be relevant to refer to Sec. 158 and Sec. 166 of the Act, which are as under :-"158. Production of certain certificates, licence and permit in certain cases :- (1) Any person driving a motor vehicle in any public place shall, on being so required by a police officer in uniform authorised in this behalf by the State Government, produce- (a) the certificate of insurance;