Judgment ( 1. ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of M. A. No. 1062/2002 and M. A. No. 1063/02. All the appeals are arising out of Claim Case No. 19/2001, Claim Case No. 20/2001 and Claim Case No. 21/2001, which has been disposed of by the common order dated 1-3-2002 passed by 6th MACT, Indore. ( 2. ) SHORT facts of the case are that on 30-4-1979 accident took place between Matador No. CPF 9856 and MPSRTCs Bus No. CPE 8842, in which the deceased Rajendra Kumar s/o Bikalal, Mulchand Sharma s/o Radheshyam, Ramjilal Sharma s/o Radheshyam, all the members of one family passed away. At the relevant time the Bus No. CPE 8842 was owned by respondent No. 4 and Matador No. CPF 9856 was driven by respondent No. 2 owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 3. ( 3. ) CLAIM petitions were filed before the learned Claim Tribunal on 22-1-2001, i. e. , roughly after expiry of 22 years. The claim petitions were challenged by the respondents on the ground of limitation. By the impugned order learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the present appeals have been filed. ( 4. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no limitation is prescribed for filing the claim petition. It was submitted that prior to 14-11-1994, there was a limitation of six months for filing the application under Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as per proviso of sub-section, application could have been filed within 12 months, if it is satisfied that the claimant was prevented by sufficient cause for making application in time. It was summated that Sub-section (3) of Section 166 has been deleted, therefore, the application could not have been dismissed by the learned Tribunal on account of delay of 22 years. ( 5. It was summated that Sub-section (3) of Section 166 has been deleted, therefore, the application could not have been dismissed by the learned Tribunal on account of delay of 22 years. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel further submits that as per Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994, Sub-section (6) has been inserted in Section 158 of the Act, according to which even no claim petition is required to be filed before the Tribunal and it is the duty of the Station Officer of the concerned Police Station where an accident, death or bodily injury has taken place to lodge a complaint and forward the same within the stipulated time before the Claims Tribunal having a jurisdiction. Sub-section (6) of Section 158 of the Act reads as under:as soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or a report under this section is completed by a police officer, the officer in charge of the Police Station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of recording of information or as the case may be on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer and where a copy is made available to the owner, he shall also within thirty days of receipt of such report forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and insurer. ( 6. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant Shri L. R. Bhatnagar further placed reliance on a decision reported in ,, 1996 ACJ1013 , 1996 IV AD (SC )652 , AIR1996 SC 2155 , [1996 ]87 Compcas240 (SC ), 1996 (2 )CTC143 , JT1996 (5 )SC 601 , 1996 (2 )KLT283 (SC ), (1997 )1 MLJ15 (SC ), 1997 (1 )MPLJ195 , (1996 )114 PLR656 , 1996 (4 )SCALE458 , (1996 )4 SCC652 , [1996 ]supp2 SCR417 , Dhannalal v. D. P. Vijayvarigya and Ors. , in which the accident took place on 4-12-1990 and the claim petition was filed on 7-12-1991 after the prescribed period of limitation under Section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In this case the application for condonation of delay was allowed by the learned Tribunal, but in an appeal this High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim petition. In this case the application for condonation of delay was allowed by the learned Tribunal, but in an appeal this High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim petition. In the circumstances, the matter went to Honble Apex Court and Apex Court has observed as under :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. 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 14-11-94 can be rejected by the Tribunal on the ground of limitation saying that the period of 12 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. 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 can not 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. In this background, the deletion of Sub-section (3) from Section 166 should be given full effect so that the object of deletion of said section by Parliament is not defeated. In this background, the deletion of Sub-section (3) from Section 166 should be given full effect so that the object of deletion of said section by Parliament is not defeated. If a victim of the accident or heirs of the decease victim can prefer the claim for compensation although not being preferred earlier because of the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed, how the victim or the heirs of the deceased shall be in a worse position if the question of condonation of delay in filing the claim petition is pending either before the Tribunal, High Court or the Supreme Court. The present appeal is one such case. The appellant has been pursuing from Tribunal to this Court. ( 7. ) FURTHER reliance was placed by the learned Counsel on a decision reported in 2003 ACJ 1999, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma and Anr. In this case accident took place on 18-2-1989, i. e. , prior to amendment of the Act, 1994 and claim petition was filed on 2-11-1995, after coming into force of Amendment Act, 1994. In this case Honble Supreme Court has observed as under : in the instant case, at the time, when the respondents had filed claim petition on 2-11-1995, the situation was completely different. Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act had been omitted by Act 54 of 1994 w. e. f. 14-11-1994. The result of the Section 53 of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994, is that there is no limitation prescribed for filing claim petitions before the Tribunal in respect of any accident w. e. f. 14-11-1994. The ratio laid down in Dhannalals case ,, 1996 ACJ1013 , 1996 IV AD (SC )652 , AIR1996 SC 2155 , [1996 ]87 Compcas240 (SC ), 1996 (2 ) CTC143 , JT1996 (5 )SC 601 , 1996 (2 )KLT283 (SC ), (1997 )1 MLJ15 (SC ), 1997 (1 )MPLJ195 , (1996 )114 PLR656 , 1996 (4 )SCALE458 , (1996 )4 SCC652 , [1996 ]supp2 SCR417 , applies with full force to the facts of the present case. When the claim petition was filed Sub-section (3) of Section 166 had been omitted. Thus, the Claims Tribunal was bound to entertain the claim petition without taking note of the date on which the accident took place. Faced with this situation, Mr. When the claim petition was filed Sub-section (3) of Section 166 had been omitted. Thus, the Claims Tribunal was bound to entertain the claim petition without taking note of the date on which the accident took place. Faced with this situation, Mr. Kapoor submitted that Dhannalals case does not consider Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act and, therefore, needs to be reconsidered. It is noted that Parliament realized the grave injustice and injury caused to heirs and legal representatives of the victims of accidents if the claim petition was rejected only on ground of limitation. Thus the different intention clearly appears and Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act would not apply. ( 8. ) LEARNED Counsel further submits that following the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court given in the matter of Dhannalals (supra) this Court in the matter of Divisional Manager MPSRTC v. Munna Singh, reported in 2000 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 42, has allowed to entertain the claim petition wherein the accident took place in 1977 and the claim petition was filed in the year 1997, i. e. , after twenty years. Further reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of ,, 2005 ACJ719 , ILR2004 KAR 960 , Sundara Poojary v. Shekara Poojary and Ors. , in which the Karnataka High Court has entertained the claim petition wherein the accident took place on 12-11-1994, i. e. , prior to enforcement of Amendment Act, 1994 and the claim petition was filed on 23-4-1997. ( 9. ) LEARNED Counsel submits that only because there is nothing in the Act and the omission of the limitation of six months prescribed under the Act of 1939, further extended for six months upon showing the sufficient cause in the Act of 1988 will not debar the appellant from filing the claim petition, when there was no limitation prescribed thereafter. Learned Counsel submits that whether the claim petition is genuine or not may be examined on merits, but at the threshold the petition could not be dismissed. ( 10. Learned Counsel submits that whether the claim petition is genuine or not may be examined on merits, but at the threshold the petition could not be dismissed. ( 10. ) FACING to this learned Counsel for the respondents Shri S. S. Swami and Shri Vinay Zelawat submits that in the case of Dhannalal (supra), accident took place on 4-12-1990 and the claim petition was filed on 7-12-1991, i. e. , four days beyond the period prescribed under Section 166 of the Amendment Act of 1988 and for that also an application for condonation of delay was filed. Therefore, the case of Dhannalal is not applicable to the present case because in the present case accident has taken place prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act, 1994 and admittedly no claim petition was filed before commencement of the Amendment Act, 1994. Learned Counsel submits that the law laid down by this Court reported in 2000 (1) Vidhi Bhasvar 42 in the matter of Divisional Manager MPSRTC v. Munna Singh will also be of no help to the appellant as in that case though the claim petition was filed after twenty years, but the claimant was minor of three years therefore, otherwise also he was entitled to file the claim petition after attaining the age of majority, therefore, this Court allowed the claimant to prosecute the claim petition. It is submitted that the benefit of Amendment Act of 1994 can not be given retrospectively. It was further submitted that if it would have been the intention of the Parliament then it would have made specify in the act itself. It is also submitted that so far as the contention that there is no necessity to file any claim petition and it is duty of the State to report the matter to the Claims Tribunal is concerned, Subsection (6) of Section 158 of the Act has come in force with effect from 14-11-1994, therefore, it can not be expected that in all the accidents which has taken place prior to the Amendment Act the concerned station officer is bound to report the matter to the Claims Tribunal. In the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma and Anr. In the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma and Anr. , reported in ,, 2003 ACJ1999 , AIR2004 SC 4394 , 2003 (6 )ALD94 (SC ), 2003 (3 ) BLJR2072 , [2004 ]118 Compcas15 (SC ), [2004 (1 )JCR34 (SC )], JT2003 (Suppl1 )SC273 , (2003 )135 PLR774 , RLW2004 (1 )SC 13 , 2003 (7 ) SCALE445 , (2003 )7 SCC713 , 2004 (1 )UJ91 (SC ), Honble Supreme Court placed reliance on the ratio laid down in Dhannalals case , 1996 ACJ1013 , 1996 IV AD (SC )652 , AIR1996 SC 2155 , [1996 ]87 Compcas240 (SC ), 1996 (2 )CTC143 , JT1996 (5 )SC 601 , 1996 (2 )KLT283 (SC ), (1997 )1 MLJ15 (SC ), 1997 (1 )MPLJ195 , (1996 )114 PLR656 , 1996 (4 )SCALE458 , (1996 )4 SCC652 , [1996 ]supp2 SCR417 and further observed that Parliament realized the grave injustice and injury caused to heirs and legal representatives of the victims of accidents if the claim petition was rejected only on ground of limitation. Thus the different intention clearly appears and Section 6-A of the General Clauses Act would not apply. In the case of Dhannalal (supra), the Honble Apex Court has considered this aspect, where no claim petition was filed when the old Act was in force and limitation expired and after enforcement of Amendment Act, if claim petition filed then Honble Apex Court held that claim petition can not be rejected by the Tribunal on the ground of limitation saying that time prescribed under Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act, 1988 has expired. ( 11. ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed at the threshold deserves to be set-aside. Since the application is filed by the claimant at the time when no limitation was prescribed, therefore, the Claims Tribunal ought to have consider the case on merits. In view of this the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Tribunal to decide on merits. Parties are directed to remain present before the learned Tribunal on 29-9-2005. The Tribunal shall dispose of the petition at the earliest within a period of six months. With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed of.