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. 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.e.f. 14-11-1994. The effect of the Amending Act is that w. e. f. 14-11-1994 there is no limitation for 'filing claims before the Tribunal in respect, of any accident.' Parliament realised the grave injustice and injury which was being caused to the heats and legal representatives of the victims who died in accidents by rejecting their claim petitions only on ground of limitation. It is a matter of common knowledge that majority of the claimants for such compensation are ignorant about the period during which such claims should be preferred. After the death due to the accident of the breadwinner of the family, in many cases, such claimants are virtually on the streets. Even in cases where the victims escape death some of such victims are hospitalised for months if not for years. Parliament rightly thought that prescribing a period of limitation and restricting the power of the Tribunal to entertain any claim petition beyond the period of twelve months from the date of the accident was harsh, inequitable and in many cases was likely to cause injustice to the claimants, It has been further held: From the amending Act it does not appear that the said Sub-section (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. 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. 8. In the facts and circumstances of this case, as stated above it is evident that no opportunity was given to the claimant for explaining the delay. Keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court referred to above, it would be expedient to set aside the impugned order and remit the case back to the,Tribunal for fresh disposal after giving due opportunity to the parties of being heard., Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the claimant-appellant will not claim any interest from the date of the impugned order, i. e. 5-7-94 till today. 9. In the result, the Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 5-7-94 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the case is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal after giving due opportunity to the parties of being heard. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 2nd August, 1999. The lower court records be set back immediately. The impugned order dated 5-7-94 passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the case is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal after giving due opportunity to the parties of being heard. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 2nd August, 1999. The lower court records be set back immediately. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed