The omission of sub-section (3) of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act should be interpreted to allow the filing of claim petitions without taking note of the date of the accident, and claim petitions cannot be thrown out on the ground of limitation when unamended section 166 was in force.

( 1 ) IN this appeal the claimant-appellant has assailed the award dated 16. 9. 1999 passed in M. V. C. No. 2 of 1998 by the Additional Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Dindori.

( 2 ) ON a perusal of the award, it is discernible that the death of Tulak Singh has occurred on 26. 2. 1989, in an accident caused by motor cycle. The claim petition was filed by his daughter in the year 1998. Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim petition on the ground of limitation. The tribunal in para 8 has recorded a finding that though there has been deletion of subsection (3) of section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, the claim was barred by time when the said provision was in force and, therefore, the claim could not be entertained.

( 3 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid, the claim case was dismissed. That apart, the tribunal has also recorded a finding that the claim petition was not tenable as the death had occurred after five days of the accident. Assailing the aforesaid award it is submitted by Mr. Lalwani, the learned counsel for the claimant that the finding of the Tribunal that the death had occurred after 5 days is inconsequential inasmuch as the death had taken place on account of injuries sustained in the accident. We are of the opinion that the submission of mr. Lalwani has sufficient force. On that ground alone, the Tribunal should not have dismissed the case.

( 4 ) NEXT question raised for consideration is whether the Claims Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application for grant of compensation on the ground of limitation. In the case of Dhannalal v. D. P. Vijayvargiya, 1996 ACJ 1013 (SC), the two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in paras 7 and 8 expressed the view as under:" (7) In this background, now it has to be examined as to what is the effect of omission of sub-section (3) of section 166 of the Act. From the Amending Act it does not appear that the said subsection (3) has been deleted retrospectively. But at the same time, there is nothing in the Amending Act to show that benefit of deletion of sub-section (3) of section 166 is not to be extended to pending claim petitions where a plea of limitation has been raised. The effect of deletion of sub-section (3) from section 166 of the Act can be tested by an illustration. Suppose an accident had taken place two years before 14. 11. 1994, when sub-section (3) was omitted from section 166. For one reason or the other no claim petition had been filed by the victim or the heirs of the victim till 14. 11. 1994. Can a claim petition be not filed after 14. 11. 1994, in respect of such accident? Whether a claim petition filed after 14. 11. 1994 can be rejected by the tribunal on the ground of limitation saying that the period of twelve months which had been prescribed when subsection (3) of section 166, was in force having expired the right to prefer the claim petition had been extinguished and shall not be revived after deletion of sub-section (3) of section 166 with effect from 14. 11. 1994? According to us, the answer should be in negative. When sub-section (3) of section 166 has been omitted, then the Tribunal has to entertain a claim petition without taking note of the date on which such accident had taken place. The claim petitions cannot be thrown out on the ground that such claim petitions were barred by time when sub-section (3) of section 166 was in force. It need not be impressed that parliament from time to time has introduced amendments in the old Act as well as in the new Act in order to protect the interest of the victims of the accidents and their heirs if the victims die. One such amendment has been introduced in the Act by the aforesaid Amendment Act 54 of 1994, by substituting sub-section (6) of section 158, which provides: 'as soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this section is completed by a police officer, the officer incharge of the police station shall f