B.N. KARIA, J.

1. The present appellant, who is original claimant before M.A.C.T. Of Bhavnagar, requested to pass an award for an amount of Rs. 2,46,914/- on the count of injuries sustained by the petitioner-appellant herein in connection with an accident, which occurred on 31.1.1990 when the appellant, who was riding on an elephant, at that point of time, respondent No.1 came driving Luxury Bus No.GJ-5T-8820 in a negligent manner, endangering the human life and dashed the Luxury Bus with the elephant, due to which the appellant fell down from the elephant and sustained injuries.

2. The Tribunal observed that the claim petition was time-barred and therefore, the application below Exh.14 was allowed and petitioner under Section 166 of the M.V. Act was dismissed. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the M.A.C.T. of Bhavnagar, the present appeal is preferred by the original petitioner-appellant herein under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act', for short)

3. Heard learned advocate Ms. Nidhi Vyas for Mr. Siddharth Dave for the appellant and Mr. Palak Thakkar for respondent No.2. No argument was advanced by the respondent No.1 as the appeal was dismissed against un-served respondent by this court on 2.8.2018.

4. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the accident had occurred in the year 1990 and the claim petition was filed in the year 1995. The Tribunal has committed serious error by not appreciating the amendment made in the Act w.e.f. 14.11.1994 in its true perspective. It was further submitted that w.e.f. 14.11.1994, time limit for filing claim petition under Section 166 of the Act was removed and therefore, after 14.11.1994, claim petition can be filed at any time, irrespective of date of accident. In the present case, even if it is filed with retrospective effect or not, the limitation would not apply. It is further submitted that, however, the claim petition was filed in 1995, after amendment, limitation aspect will not be applicable to the facts of the present case.

5. In support of her argument, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter between The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. C. Padma & Anr., (2003) 7 SCC 713, submitting that the claimant is entitled to the benefit of amended provision, irrespective of the fact that the cause of action arose prior to the enforcement of the amended Act or the old Act. Hence, it was requested to quash and set-aside the order passed below Exh.14 dated 19.11.2003 by way of preferring this First Appeal.

6. From the other side, learned counsel Mr. P.H. Thakkar for respondent No.2 submitted that, clearly the accident had occurred on 31.1.1990 and the claim petition was filed in the year 1995. That the amendment under Section 166 of the Act came into force from 14.11.1994. That this accident had occurred prior to amendment under Section 166 of the Act, wherein six months' period from the date of accident was fixed and therefore, as the time limit was fixed by the Legislature, the petition was required to be preferred on or before 31.1.1991, extending further six months', if any. The Tribunal has rightly passed an order, holding that the claim petition was preferred by the petitioner on 15.12.1995, which was time-barred and therefore, the award cannot be passed upon the time-barred application at Exh.1. That no irregularity was committed by the Tribunal in allowing the application of respondent No.2 at Exh.14 and therefore, it was requested by learned counsel for respondent No.2 to dismiss the First Appeal.

7. Having considered the facts of the case and perusing the order passed by the Tribunal below application at Exh.14 preferred by respondent No.2, stating that the accident in dispute had occurred on 31.1.1990 under Section 166 of the Act and therefore, at the relevant point of time, the claimant was required to prefer the petition within six months' from the date o