The main legal point established in the judgment is the retrospective effect of the deletion of section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, allowing claim petitions filed beyond the limitation period to be maintainable and emphasizing the need for a liberal view in condoning delay.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed under section 110-D of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939 against the order dated 5. 11. 1979 passed by the District Judge, allahabad by which the application for condonation of delay has been rejected.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellant had filed a claim petition on 13. 12. 1978 under the Act on the ground that on 14. 12. 1977 at about 4. 45 p. m. on g. T. Road, Police Station, Handia, District allahabad, he was severely injured in the accident caused by the minibus No. USS 1534 by rash and negligent driving. The limitation for filing the claim petition was six months from the date of accident under section 110-A of the Act. Since the claim petition was filed beyond the period of limitation, an application for the condonation of delay was filed along with an affidavit. In the affidavit it was explained that the applicant was confined to bed and there was no male member in the family to look after the work for filing of the claim petition and the applicant being illiterate could not file the claim petition within the statutory time prescribed under section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act. The learned district Judge vide order dated 5. 11. 1979 rejected the application for condonation of delay on the ground that there was no medical certificate or copy of the injury report from which it could be said that the illness was of such magnitude as to prevent the applicant from filing a claim within the presentation period of limitation. Being aggrieved by the order, the present appeal has been filed.

( 3 ) HEARD Mr. Savr Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. A. L. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant. Despite of list being revised no one appears on behalf of the respondent.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was amended w. e. f. 1. 7. 1989 and section 166 (3) was introduced in place of section 110-A (3), which also provided six months limitation for filing of claim petition. Further, section 166 (3) has been omitted by section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 and after the omission of section 166 (3) there is no limitation for filing of claim petition. He submitted that in respect of pending matters also it is deemed that there was no limitation for filing of claim petition. He submitted that the claim petition should be treated as maintainable even if it was filed beyond the period of limitation as contemplated under sub-section (3) of section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act and should be decided on merit. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of dhannalal v. D. P. Vijayvargiya, 1996 ACJ 1013 (SC ).

( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has substantial force and the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of dhannalal v. D. P. Vijayvargiya, 1996 ACJ 1013 (SC ). Sub-section (3) of section 110-A of the motor Vehicles Act provides:

"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. "

( 6 ) THE Act which repealed the earlier motor Vehicles Act of 1939 came in force w. e. f. 1. 7. 1989. The new Act prescribed a period of limitation for filing the claim petition in sub-section (3) of section 166. Said sub-section provided:

"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 but not later than twelve months, if it is satisfied that the applic