JUDGMENT 1. - Since all the aforesaid four appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 30-11-2004 passed by MACT, Dholpur, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that 7-4-1992 when the deceased Ram Singh and Smt. Maya along with other passengers were travelling in a tractor trolley, suddenly Bus No. RJ 14 P 1507 hit the tractor trolley, resulting death of Ram Singh and Maya and serious injuries to number of persons. 3. Thereafter, First Information Report was lodged. Claim petitions were filed. Notices were issued, written statement was filed, issues were framed, evidence was submitted and after hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned award awarding different amount of compensations in different claim petitions. " 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the RSRTC has filed the aforesaid appeals. 5. At the out-set, learned counsel for the RSRTC fairly and frankly contended that the issue involved in all the aforesaid appeals is squarely covered by the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma & another, Appeal (Civil) No. 5764 of 1997: ( AIR 2003 SC 4394 ) and Dhanna Lal v. D. P. Vijayvargiya & Ors., reported in 1996 SCC (4) 652: ( AIR 1996 SC 2155 ) . 6. The aforesaid fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the claimants. 7. In the case of Dhanna Lal, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under : "Before the scope of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act is examined, it may be pointed out that the aforesaid sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Act has been omitted by Section 53 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which came in force w.e.f. 14-11-1994. The effect of the Amending Act is that w.e.f. 14-11-1994 there is no limitation for filing claims before the Tribunal in respect of any accident. It can be said 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 can be said 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 such claims 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 escapes death some of such victims are hospitalized for months if not for years. In the present case itself, the applicant claims that he met with the accident on 4-12-1990 and he was being treated as an indoor patient till 27-9-1991. According to us, in its' wisdom the Parliament, rightly thought that prescribing a period of limitation and restricting the power of Tribunal to entertain any claim petition beyond the period of twelve months from the date of the accident was harsh, inequitable and in many cases was likely to cause injustice to the claimants. The present case is a glaring example where the appellant has been deprived by the, order of the High Court from claiming the compensation because of delay of only four days in preferring the claim petition." 8. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence emerging on record, as submitted by both the parties and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C. Padma, AIR 2003 SC 4394 (supra) and Dhanna Lal, AIR 1996 SC 2155 (supra), I do not think it proper to interfere in the impugned award dated 30-11-2004 passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, all the aforesaid four appeals fail and the same being bereft of any merit deserve to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly. 9. Consequent upon the dismissal of appeals, the stay applications, filed herewith, do not survive and they also stand dismissed.Appeals dismissed. *******