The deletion of Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994, which came into force on 14-11-1994, has the effect of removing the limitation period for filing claims before the Tribunal in respect of any accident.

JUDGMENT :

P.K. Patra, J. - This is an appear u/s 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenging the order dated 5-7-1994 in M. v. Misc. Case No. 62 of 1992 passed by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') dismissing the prayer of the claimant-applicant for grant of compensation u/s 166 of the Act.

2. Kumari Sadhana Priyadarshini Sahu a minor girl aged nine years and a student of Standard-V of St. Joseph's Convent School. Cuttack was riding her bicycle on public road at Mahammadia Bazar. Cut tack on 22-4-1991 at about 8 p, m. when the offending car bearing registration No. O.R. U. 7135 driven by a mechanic dashed against her bicycle as a result of which she fell down and sustained injuries on her right knee tight elbow and swelling over right side waist. Her grand-father Rajendra Narayan Sahu filed the claim petition on her behalf claiming compensation of Rs. 51,300.00 from opposite. party No. 1 Dr. Bijay Kumar Nanda and opposite party No. 2, the National Insurance Company Limited. Cuttack Division No. II, alleging that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the car. The car had been insured with opposite party No. 2. The claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribuna, Cuttack who after causing service of notice on the opposite parties and framing the issues transferred the case to the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Cuttack for disposal. On 5-7-94 the Tribunal disposed of the case in absence of the claimant dismissing the claim- petition on the ground that it was not maintainable being barred by limitation and that no evidence was led before him or condonation of delay.

3. Being aggrieved with the said order dated 5-7-94 the claimant has filed this appeal.

4. Heard learned Counsel for both sides at length. Mr. R.N. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant Appellant contented that no opportunity was given to the claimant-appellant to contest the case inasmuch as he had no notice of the transfer of the case by the M.A.C.T. to the Tribunal and that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. He urged for remanding the case to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. Learned Counsel for the Respondents refuted the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant.

5. The lower court records reveal that the claim petition was filed on 25-1-92 and after several adjournments the opposite parties entered appearance and.filed their written statements. On 5-2-93 opposite party No. 2 filed the written statement and on the same day issues were framed without service of copy of the written statement of the counsel for the claimant who was absent on that date. The same day the,case was transferred to the Second M.A.C.T.,for disposal fixing 6-5-93 for heating. It is evident from the records that the learned - counsel for the claimant had no notice of transfer of, the case to the 'Tribunal. On 6-5-93 as well as on 20-7-93 none of the parties appeared before the Tribunal and the case was posted to 5-7-94 for hearing. On that date the learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 was present, but the learned Counsel for the claimant and opposite party No. 1 were absent, after, hearing the learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2, the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal.

6. The petition filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay had been kept open for consideration at the time of final disposal of the case. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that had he been given opportunity to lead evidence, be could have explained a few days delay in presenting the Claim petition.

7. In the case of Dhannalal Vs. D.P. Vijayvargiya and Others relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, it has been held as follows:

Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act has been omitted by Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which came into force w