JUDGMENT - V.K. BARDE, J.:---The present petitioners filed an application for compensation as per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As there was delay in filing the application, separate application for condonation of delay was filed. The learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed, by his order dated 2-1-1992, rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the petition. Being aggrieved by this order original applicants-claimants have filed the present petition. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the ruling of the Apex Court, in the case of (Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya and others)1, 1997(1) Mh.L.J. 487 , and has contended that as sub-section (3) of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is deleted by section 53 of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1994, the claim petition must be entertained by the tribunal. 3. The Apex Court has observed in para 8 of the above quoted judgment, as follows:--- "The matter will be different if any claimant having filed a petition for claim beyond time which has been rejected by the tribunal or the High Court, the claimant does not challenge the same and allows the said judicial order to become final. The aforesaid Amending Act shall be of no help to such claimant. The reason being that a judicial order saying that such petition of claim was barred by limitation has attained finality. But that principle will not govern cases where the dispute as to whether petition for claim having been filed beyond the period of twelve months from the date of the accident is pending consideration either before the Tribunal, High Court or this Court. In such cases, the benefit of amendment of sub-section (3) of section 166 should be extended." 4. In view of this position, the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of the amendment which has deleted sub-section (3) of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. No period of limitation is now prescribed for filing the claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 5. Hence, Civil Revision Application No. 550/1992 is allowed. The order passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed, on 2-1-1992, below Exhibit 3 in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 47/1991, is set aside. No period of limitation is now prescribed for filing the claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 5. Hence, Civil Revision Application No. 550/1992 is allowed. The order passed by the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed, on 2-1-1992, below Exhibit 3 in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 47/1991, is set aside. The claim petition filed by the petitioners be entertained and be disposed of according to law, as expeditiously as possible, by the learned Member of the Tribunal. 6. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Civil Revision Application allowed. -----