The retrospective effect of legislative amendments and the entitlement of minors to file claim petitions upon reaching the age of majority were central legal principles established in the judgment.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Dehat dated 21-3-1993 in Claim Petition No. 114 of 1991 whereby a sum of Rs. 1,75,000. 00 has been awarded to the claimant-respondents.

( 2 ) THE claim petition was filed by the claimant-respondents on 12-4-1990 with the allegations that their father Brij Bhushan, who was going on a cycle with his eldest son Arun Kumar towards his village Pailwar, while reached near culvert near Rajpur Roadwayas Bus Stop, the truck No. UTW 9228 dashed against him with the result he received severe injuries and later on succumbed to his injuries within half an hour of the accident leaving behind him one6 unmarried daughter and two minor sons, i. e. the claimant-respondents. Rajendra Singh was the driver and he was driving the truck rashly and negligently. The wife of the deceased (mother of the claimant respondents) had already expired. The claimant-respondent were minors at the time of the accident. The deceased was aged about 48 years at the time of his death and was earning Rs. 1,000. 00 per month from his hotel business. They claimed a sum of Rs. 5,28,000. 00 as compensation.

( 3 ) THE driver of the truck filed written-statement and he stated that he was not driving the truck in question on the relevant date. The owner of the truck also filed written-statement and denied that the accident had taken place from the vehicle in question. The appellant also filed written-statement and took the same pleas as were taken by the owner of the truck. It further took the plea that the claim petition was barred by limitation. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident had taken place as alleged by the claimant-respondents due to which Brij Bhushan expired and on appreciation of evidence, held that the claimant-respondents were entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,75,000. 00 as compensation. This order has been challenged in the present appeal.

( 4 ) WE have heard Sri A. B. Saran, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Sri H. P. Misra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the claim petition was barred by limitation and, therefore, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Admittedly, the claimant-respondents had filed an application to condone the delay in filing the claim petition. The Tribunal condoned the delay.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal had no power to condone the delay in filing the claim petition. He has referred to the decision in Vinod Gurudas Raikar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. , AIR 1991 SC 2156 wherein the Supreme Court has held that if the claim petition is filed after repeal of the old Act, the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay of more than six months.

( 7 ) IT is necessaryto refer the legislative changes under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. At the time of the death of the deceased in the year 1977, Motor Vehciles Act, 1939 was applicable. The claim petition should have been filed under Section 110-A of the said Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 110-A of the Act provided that :-"no application for such compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident :provided that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of six months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. "

( 8 ) THE Tribunal had jaurisdiction to codnone the delay and there was no limitation as to up to what period the delay could be condoned.

( 9 ) THE Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was repealed and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force w. e. f. 1-7-1989. The new Act provided that a period of limitation for filing the claim petition under sub-section (3) of Section 166. The said sub-section provided that :"no application for such compensation shall be entertained unless i