The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 has retrospective effect and applies to cases filed under the previous Acts, which prescribed a specific period for filing claim petitions. Therefore, delay in filing a claim petition can be condoned.

Bhawani Singh J. — this appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla in MACC No. 9-S/2 of 1990 dated 29-5-1991.

2. Truck HPS-7610 belonged to H.P. State Electricity Board. Shri Brijender Singh was the driver. On 27-11-1988, it was corning from Luhri to Nithar met with an accident and fell into the Nala. At the time of accident, deceased Ghali Ram (hereafter Ghali Ram) was one of the occupants in it. He died in this accident. According to the claimants, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Driver Brijender Singh, Ghali Ram was 40 years old and at that time was working as private Mason and Carpenter. His income was Rs. 1,300 p m. and he left behind his widow and three sons who were dependent on him. Compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs has been claimed from the respondents. The petition was barred by time, therefore, it was pleaded that the delay was due to the assurances given to them by the respondents that adequate compensation would be paid to them. They waited for a long time but when it was not given, the claim petition had to be filed. Respondents contested this claim. It was denied that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by truck driver. It is also pointed out that the petition was barred by time. On the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the deceased S/Shri Ghali Ram and Kumari Nirmala Devi had died on account of rash and negligent driving of truck driver Shri Brijender Singh of truck No. NPS-7610 which truck belonged to H.P.S.E.B, as alleged, if so, its effect? OPP (2) If issue No 1 supra is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners of each petition are entitled to and from which of the respondents? OPP (3) Whether there is sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in question? OPP (4) Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged? OPR (5) Relief.

3. The Tribunal held that Ghali Ram died in this accident which was the result of rash and negligent driving by driver Brijender Singh of this truck belonging to H. P. State Electricity Board. It was also held that claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs l 6,000 from the respondents. However, the claim petition was dismissed on the ground of delay, hence this appeal.

4. First question canvassed before us by the learned Counsel for the parties relates to limitation. Sh Jamalta forceably contended that the tribunal has rightly dismissed the petition on the ground of delay since the claimants failed to explain the delay in filing the petition satisfactorily. Mrs. Shrama Dogra on the other hand urges that the circumstances for the late filing of this appeal were duly explained before the tribunal and it was pointed out that the petition v as not filed in time before the tribunal due to the assurances extended by the respondents that they would be adequately compensated. When they waited for long and the compensation was not given, the petition was filed. In these circumstances, it was the fit case where limitation ought to have been condoned. We need not examine this question since it is covered by Division Bench decisions of this Court, namely, F.A.O. (MVA) 41 of 1992, Sadh Ram v. State of H P.; F. A. O. (MVA) 302 of 1992, Smt Kanta Jain and others v Chairman-cum-Managing Director and others and F.A.O. (MVA) 65 of 1993, Moti Lal v. General Manager and others. This decision was later followed by this Court in F.A.O. (MVA) 112 of 1988. Oriental Insurance Co, Ltd v. Top Bahadur and others, and also in subsequent decisions. In all these cases, it has been held that Motor Vehicles (Amend.) Act, 1994 is a beneficial piece of legislation and has retrospective effect so far as limitation is concerned. Therefore, they will govern those cases which have been filed under the previous Acts which prescribe particular period within which claim petitions were to be filed.

5. The next question is, what compensation should be awarded in this c