JUDGMENT : B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Solomon Raju Manchala, learned Standing Counsel for respondent/APSRTC. 2. The appeal directed by the claimants against the order dated 31.07.2008 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 935/2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Judge, Guntur. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the learned Tribunal. 4. The claimants filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal U/s. 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- for the death of Muthakana Suramma @ Swarna (hereinafter referred as ‘deceased’) in a motor accident occurred on 25.02.1992 near Pedavadlapudi village. 5. The case of the claimants is that the claimants are the children of the deceased Muthakana Suramma @ Swarna; the deceased was aged about 50 years, and earning Rs.100/- per day by working as labourer and maintaining her dependants; On 25.02.1992 at about 10.00 a.m. the deceased and others were proceeding in a rickshaw on left side of road margin, APSRTC bus bearing No. AEZ 5832 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction towards wrong side and dashed against the rickshaw near Pedavadlapudi village; Consequently, the deceased and others sustained grievous injuries; The deceased died on the same day. Mangalagiri Rural Police registered a case against the driver of APSRTC bus; Due to the death of deceased, the claimants lost her love and affection and also care and financial support; The respondent being the owner of the bus is liable to pay compensation; After accident, the officials of respondent approached the claimants and paid Rs.40,000/- to the father of the claimants towards exgratia relief; The claimants are entitled for higher compensation, but the respondent/APSRTC did not pay the same. 6. The respondent filed written statement, while traversing with the material averments with regard to manner of accident; rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle; nature of injuries; age and avocation of the deceased; liability to pay compensation and contended that the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus and it was occurred due to sheer negligence of rickshaw puller and the claim is highly exorbitant; and the claimants are not entitled for any amount. 7. 7. Basing on the above pleadings of both parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the deceased died in the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the APSRTC Bus bearing No. AEZ 5832? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what would be the just amount of compensation that the petitioners would be entitled and against whom? 3. To what relief? 8. Before the learned Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined as PWs. 1 and 2 and four documents were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-4 respectively. On behalf of the respondent/APSRTC, RW-1 was examined and six documents were marked as Exs.B-1 to B-6. 9. The learned Tribunal basing on the evidence placed before it, held on issue No. 1 that the accident was occurred due to fault of the APSRTC bus driver. 10. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence placed before it, on issue No. 2 held that the petition is not maintainable and dismissed the petition without costs. 11. The learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the point of limitation that the accident was occurred in the year 1992, and the claim petition is filed in the year 2007, and there is no reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the claim petition. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that there is no period of limitation prescribed for filing claim petition and therefore, the order of the learned Tribunal is erroneous in law. 13. The learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC would submit that there is no period of limitation is prescribed for filing claim petition, it does not mean that the claimant can approach the Tribunal at any point of time, and the claimant has to approach the learned Tribunal within a reasonable period, and in the case on hand, the learned Tribunal found that no reasonable explanation was offered by the claimant for the delay. 14. 14. He would further submit that in this matter, the claimants and APSRTC settled the matter soon after the accident in the year 1992 and as per the settlement, APSRTC paid the compensation, and the claimants executed a letter stating that the compensation is received towards full and final settlement of the claim, and in those circumstances, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, as there is no reasonable explanation for the delay. 15. In the light of above rival contentions, the point that would arise for consideration in this appeal is as under: 1. Whether the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal warrants interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? 16. POINT No. 1: It is an admitted fact that the accident was occurred in the year 1992 i.e. on 25.02.1992. It is also an admitted fact that the claimant received amount paid by the APSRTC towards compensation and executed Ex.B-1 (letter) accepting the compensation towards final settlement. 17. The claim application filed subsequently after 15 years, on the ground that they were not aware that they would get more amount towards compensation. 18. It is a fact that RTC disputing the claim on account of the settlement between the claimant and the APSRTC and in view of the letter executed by the claimant in the year 1992 was closed. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Purohit and Company Vs. Khatoonbee and another, 2017 (4) SCC 783 after a detailed analysis of the legislative development and the judicial pronouncements, including the observation in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. C. Padma and another, 2003 (7) SCC 713 , Vinod Gurudas Raikar Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, 1991 (4) SCC 333 , Dhanlal Vs. D.P. Vijayvargiya, 1996 (4) SCC 652 annunciated that despite there being no bar of limitation, the claimant must approach the Tribunal within a reasonable time, in paragraph 15 held as under: “We are of the considered view, that a claim raised before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, can be considered to be genuine, so long as it is a live and surviving claim.” 20. The period of limitation of six months, introduced by sub-section (3) of section 166, was omitted by Amendment Act, 1994.Thus, the learned Tribunal is required to take a note of the fact that the legislature in its wisdom did not to prescribe any period of limitation for filing a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. 21. But this does not mean to say that the claimant can approach the learned Tribunal at any point of time. The claimant must approach the learned Tribunal within a reasonable period. Claim raised before the learned Tribunal, can be considered as genuine, so long as it is a live and surviving claim. It shall be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case. 22. In the light of above legal position, if the facts of the case on hand are considered, admittedly, on account of the settlement between the claimant and the APSRTC, the compensation amount was paid, and the claimant accepted the same voluntarily, and accordingly, executed Ex. B-1 letter, accepting the same as final amount, received towards compensation. Therefore, there is no live and surviving claim on the date of filing the claim petition in the year 2007. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point is answered. 23. POINT No. 2: To what relief? In the light of finding on point No. 1, the appeal be dismissed, by confirming the order and decree passed by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the point is answered. 24. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the order and decree dated 31.07.2008 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 935/2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Judge, Guntur. There shall be no order as to costs. 25. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.