The removal of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by Amendment Act 54 of 1994, had the effect of removing the limitation period for filing claim petitions under the Act.

1. Heard Mr.R.Vedantham, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/insurance company.

2. The revision is directed against the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Principal District Judge. Tirunelveli. in M.C.O.P.GL.No.7455 of 1995 (Unnumbered M.C.O.P.) dated 7. 1996. whereby the Tribunal has entertained the claim petition filed by the 1st respondent/claimant on 11. 1995, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident that took place on 12. 1989. The Tribunal entertained the claim petition on 11. 1995. the accident took place on 12. 1989 i.e., prior to the coming into force of the amended Motor Vehicles Act (Act 59 of 1988), which came into force with effect from 7. 1989. The Tribunal over-ruled the objection raised by the insurance company that the claim petition was wholly barred by limitation inasmuch as the claim petition has been filed only on 11. 1995 in respect of the accident that took place on 12. 1989, i.e., nearly after six years and ten months from the date of the accident.

3. It is useful to extract the order of the Tribunal, which is impugned in this revision. It runs as follows :-

"The counsel for the claimant submitted that as per the ruling in Wilfred v. N.A.Maniyar, 1995 A.C.J. 673 there cannot be a limitation under the new Motor Vehicles Act to file a claim petition and therefore even though the accident took place on 12. 1989 the claim of the petitioner is not barred by limitation and the petition has to be admitted. The counsel who appeared on behalf of the insurance company submitted that even though there is no limitation under the new Motor Vehicles Act, the General Clauses Act would prescribe the limitation as three years when no limitation is prescribed under any other Act. and therefore the claim ought to have been filed within three years from the date of the accident. Since the same has not been filed within a period of three years, it is barred by limitation.

On a careful consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. I am of the view that the submission made on behalf of the respondent does not appear to be acceptable. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act have been liberalised so far as awarding compensation to the claimants who were either injured or died in the same. When the new Motor Vehicles Act had chosen to prescribe no limitation and the provisions have been given retrospective effect, the said provisions would stand defeated if the argument put forward on behalf of the respondents is accepted. Hence, on the basis of the principles of law reported in Vinod Gurudas Raikar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.. AIR. 1991 SC 2156 and Wilfred v. N.A.Maniyar, 1995 A.C.J. 673. the petition is ordered to be numbered if otherwise in order."

4. It is contended by Mr.R.Vedantham that the Tribunal, on an erroneous interpretation of the law governing the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act applicable on the date of the accident, allowed the claim petition to be numbered witliout reference to the number of days of delay in filing the same. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel made the following submissions:

.(i) The Tribunal failed to see that the application for compensation was filed by the 1st respondent/claimant on 11. 1995 whereas the accident had taken place as early as 12. 1989, i.e., almost after a period of six years and ten months from the date of the accident.

.(ii) The tribunal has erred in holding that since the Amending Act viz.. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (amending Act 54 of 1994) did not specify any period of limitation in respect of filing of an application for compensation, the 1st respondent/claimant cannot be denied the right to file an application in view of the provisions of the Amending Act. The Tribunal has further erred in holding that no limitation is prescribed for the claimant to prefer the application for compensation.

(iii) The Tribunal has further mis-directed itsel