( 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. ( 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 it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident. 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 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 applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. "the power of the Tribunal to condone the delay under the aforesaid provision was limited for a period of six months. ( 10 ) SUB-SECTION (3) of Section166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 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 there is no limitation for filing petition before the Tribunal in respect of any claim. The matter was considered by the Supreme Court in Dhannalal v. D. P. Vijayavargiya, AIR 1996 SC 2155 and it was observed; "the Parliament realised the grave injustice and injury which was being caused to the heirs 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 such7 claim should be preferred. After the death due to the accident, of the bread earner 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. It was held that the said deletion shall be deemed as retrospective and made the following observations (Para 7)"in this back ground 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 sub-section (3) has been deleted retrospective. 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 be extended to pending claim petitions where a plea of limittion has been raised. From the Amending Act it does not appear that the said sub-section (3) has been deleted retrospective. 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 be extended to pending claim petitions where a plea of limittion 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 sub-section (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 w. e. f. 14-11-1994 ? According to us, the answer should be in negative. " ( 11 ) IN the present case the Tribunal had given award on 13-3-1993. . The appellant filed an appeal against his order and it will be taken as continuation of the same proceeding. The claimant-respondents are entitled to the benefit of the said provision. ( 12 ) SECONDLY, at the time of the death of the deceased on 7-5-1977 the claimants were minors. The claim petition was filed on 12-4-1990 and on the said the elder daughter was 20 years and 9 months, his son was 19 years and 9 months and second son was still minor aged about 16 years. Section 6 of the Limitation Act provides that where a person is entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned a, minor or insance, or an idiot, may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the disability has ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time specified therefor in the third column of the Schedule. As the claimants were minors at the time of the death of the deceased, they could have filed the claim petition on attaining the age of majority. As stated above, the claimants were minors and after attaining the age of majority, they have filed claim petition, which shall be treated to have been filed within time. ( 13 ) THIRDLY, the appellant as Insurance Company could have raised such objections as permissible under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 149 does not permit the Insurance Company to raise any objection in respect of the limitation. The appellant has not shown that it had taken permission of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act to contest the claim petition in respect of its merit including the question of limitation. The appellant, in these circumstances, is not entitled to contest the claim petition on the ground that it is barred by limitation. ( 14 ) THE next submisison of the learned counsl for the appellant is that the Tribunal has not recorded any specific finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle in question. The claim petition was filed with the allegations that Brij Bhushan, the deceased was going on cycle with his son Arun Kumar and when he reached near the culvert he was hit by truck No. UTW 9228 which was being driven rashly and negligently by Rajendra Singh driver. He on receiving the injuries died within half an hour of the accident. The appellant and the respondents denied that the accident was caused by the vehicle in question. The allegations of the appellant and other contesting respondents were found to be wrong. Arun Kumar, the son of the deceased appeared as PW 1. He narrated the full incident and his statement has been believed by the Tribunal. His statement clearly indicates that the accident was caused due to rash and neligent driving of the driver of the truck. ( 15 ) IN view of the above, we do not find any merit in the appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed with costs to the claimant-respondents. Appeal dismissed. .