JUDGMENT : I.M. Quddusi, J. These two appeals (M.A. Nos. 1656 and 1657 of 1999) have been against the common award dated 28-6-1999, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Soorajpur. Surguja in Claim Case Nos. 97/98 Ganpat Koir v. Inder Prasad and 35/98 Ketki Kumari v. Inder Prasad, therefore both the appeals are being decided by this order. 2. The, brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 28-2-1979 Ganpat and Motilal were going to the weekly market Odsi Bazar on the Truck, bearing registration No. MPL 3045 after loading their belongings in the truck. The said truck was owned by the non-applicant No. 1 and at the relevant time the non-applicant No. 2 was its driver. On that day at Village - Baijnathpur near Langda Ghoda Ghat due to rash and negligent driving of the non-applicant No. 2 the truck lurned turtle. In that accident Ganpat and Motilal both received grievous injuries and later on Motilal succumbed to the injuries received in the accident. 3. The injured Ganpat filed Claim Case No. 97/98 for award of total compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- and Ketki Kumari (daughter of the deceased Motilal) filed Claim Case No. 35/98 for award of total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Both the claim cases were filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and were tried together by the Claims Tribunal. 4. It was noticed by the Tribunal that the accident had occurred on 28-2-1979 whereas the claim petitions were filed on 26-3-1998 and 7-8-1998 and as such, learned Tribunal by the impugned common award dated 28-6-1999 dismissed both the claim petitions on the ground of limitation as at the time of accident sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was in existence, which provided as under : 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. 5. However, the above quoted provision was repealed w.e.f. 14-11-1994. 6. 5. However, the above quoted provision was repealed w.e.f. 14-11-1994. 6. Now, the question has come before this Court that at this stage when the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act, 1988 have been omitted w.e.f. 14-11-1994, can this Court in the instant appeal ignore the hurdle of limitation and remit it to the Claims Tribunal for adjudication on merits as there is no limitation prescribed for filing such a claim petition. Further, a question has also arisen that if no claim petition would have been filed during the existence of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act, 1988 and a claim petition was filed after its repealing i.e. 14-11-1994 when no period of limitation was prescribed for filing such a claim petition, the Tribunal was bound to entertain the claim petition and decide the same on merits. 7. In the above regard our attention has been drawn towards the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhannalal Vs. D.P. Vijayvargiya and Others, in which case the principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court taking the illustrative view in paragraph 7, the Tribunal was directed to entertain the claim petition. Para 7 of decision is reproduced herein below : 7. In this background, 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 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 subsection (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? 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 subsection (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 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. 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 interests of the victims of the accidents and their heirs if the victims die. One such amendment has been introduced in the Act by the aforesaid Amendment Act 54 of 1994 by substituting sub-section (6) of Section 158 which provides : 158. (6) As soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or 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. In view of sub-section (6) of Section 158 of the Act the officer-in-charge of the police station is enjoined to forward a copy of information/report regarding the accident to the Tribunal having jurisdiction. A copy thereof has also to be forwarded to the insurer concerned. It also requires that where a copy is made available to the owner of the vehicle, he shall within thirty days of receipt of such copy forward the same to the Claims Tribunal and insurer. In this background, the deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 should be given full effect so that the object of deletion of the said section by Parliament is not defeated. If a victim of the accident or heirs of the deceased victim can prefer 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 condo nation of delay in filing the claim petition is pending either before the Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court. The present appeal is one such case. The appellant has been pursuing from the Tribunal to this Court. His right to get compensation in connection with the accident in question is being resisted by the respondents on the ground of delay in filing the same. If he had not filed any petition for claim till 14-11-1994 in respect of the accident which took place on 4-12-1990, in view of the amending Act he became entitled to file such claim petition, the period of limitation having been deleted, the claim petition which has been filed and is being pursued up to this Court cannot be thrown out on the ground of limitation. 8. In that case the victim/injured filed a claim petition before the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Badwah for compensation along with an application for condo nation of delay on 7-12-1991. 8. In that case the victim/injured filed a claim petition before the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Badwah for compensation along with an application for condo nation of delay on 7-12-1991. The Claims Tribunal vide order dated 18-11-1993 condoned the delay but the validity of the said order was challenged by the respondent therein in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the High Court by order dated 31-7-1995 set aside the order of the Tribunal saying that in view of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act, 1988 the power of condo nation by the Tribunal has been withdrawn and any claim must be filed within the period prescribed therein. The High Court further observed that by prescribing the fixed period for filing the petition for claim the intention was that the 'sword of liability of paying compensation in respect of accident caused by motor vehicle should not be permitted to hover on the head of the person owning the said vehicle and person driving such vehicle'. It was also pointed out that the position was different under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, in which sub-section (3) of Section 110A although prescribed a period of six months for filing an application for compensation from the date of the accident, but vested power in the Tribunal to entertain such application even after the expiry of the said period of six months, if the Tribunal was satisfied that the claimant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. According to the High Court, as proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act said that claims tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of six months, but not later than twelve months, any application filed beyond the period of twelve months from the date of the accident cannot be entertained as no discretion had been left with the Tribunal to consider the circumstances because of which the application for claim could not be filed within the period of twelve months of the occurrence of the accident. In that decision Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 8 and 9 observed as under : 8. In that decision Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraphs 8 and 9 observed as under : 8. 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, the High Court or this Court. In such cases, the benefit of amendment of sub-section (3) of Section 166 should be extended. 9. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court. We direct the Tribunal to entertain the petition for claim filed on behalf of the appellant and to dispose of the same as early as possible in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Since the instant appeals are pending before this Court and following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhannalal Vs. D.P. Vijayvargiya and Others, and taking into consideration that there is no limitation prescribed for filing the claim petition after omission of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act, 1988, we are bound to allow both the appeals in part and remit the matters to the Claims Tribunal for deciding on merits. 10. For the reasons stated herein above, we allow both the appeals in part, set aside the impugned common award dated 28-6-1999 and remit back the matters to the Tribunal for decision afresh on merits in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as the Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. No order as to costs. 11. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence again in support of their pleadings and may file further documents and get the documents verified etc. Thereafter, the decision shall be made by the Tribunal on merits. 12. No order as to costs. 11. Needless to mention that the parties shall be allowed to amend their pleadings, adduce further evidence again in support of their pleadings and may file further documents and get the documents verified etc. Thereafter, the decision shall be made by the Tribunal on merits. 12. The claim petitions shall be restored to its original number and award shall be passed in accordance with law. 13. Registry is directed to send back the papers to the Tribunal forthwith. 14. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 14th June, 2011.