JUDGMENT 1. - The present civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is preferred by the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') against the impugned judgment/Award dated 07.05.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 93/96, whereby an amount of Rs. 83,800/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants/respondents Nos. 1 to 3 as compensation. 2. The main challenge to the impugned Award by the appellant Corporation is on the ground that the accident took place way back on 19.06.1982, whereas the claim petition has been filed by the claimants/respondents on 18.04.1996 i.e. after an inordinate delay of about 14 years and thus, it is hopelessly barred by limitation and as such, the claim petition liable to be dismissed only on this count alone. 3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant Corporation has placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Kerala High Court in the case of Biju K. Francis v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 2005 (2) T.A.C. 54 (Ker.) , wherein the Kerala High Court has held that 'Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Section 110-A (Section 166 of Act 59 of 1988)- Claim application- Limitation for filing- Claim petition cannot be filed without sufficient cause after many years even if no limitation provided therefor." 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijay vargiya and others, AIR 1996 SC 2155 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the Motor Vehicles Act section 166(3) has held that "Repeal of sub-s (3) prescribing limitation for filing claims petitions before Tribunal- Object seems to save victims of accident or their heirs from grave injustice caused due to rejection of petition on ground of limitation." 5. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has further observed that "Claim petition pending on 14-11- 94, i.e. the date on which sub-section (3) stood repealed- It could not be dismissed on ground that it was barred by limitation under sub-section (3) on date of its filing." 6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court has further observed that "Claim petition pending on 14-11- 94, i.e. the date on which sub-section (3) stood repealed- It could not be dismissed on ground that it was barred by limitation under sub-section (3) on date of its filing." 6. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the ground of limitation was not taken by the appellant Corporation before the Tribunal and for the first time this ground has been taken here in this appeal. 7. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the relevant record as also the impugned Award dated 07.05.1998 passed by the Tribunal. I have also gone through the judgments referred before this Court on behalf of the respective parties. 8. The impugned Award dated 07.05.1998 passed by the Tribunal has been challenged by the appellant Corporation solely on the ground of limitation as the claim petition was filed by the claimants/respondents after an inordinate delay and, therefore, prayed that the claim petition deserves to be dismissed only on this count alone. 9. In view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the claim petition filed by the claimants/ respondents cannot be dismissed only on the ground of limitation and the impugned Award dated 07.05.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur is just, proper and reasonable and the same requires no interference as no illegality or error apparent on the face of the record is observed by this Court. 10. Consequently, the civil misc. appeal fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 11. The interim order dated 28.07.98 granted by this Court stands rejected. The stay application also stands dismissed.Record be sent back.Appeal dismissed. *******