JUDGMENT : Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. 1. Nobody is present on behalf of the appellants and the present appeal is pending since the year 2004, therefore, the same is being heard and decided finally today itself. 2. Mr. Sandeep Saruparia, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent-claimant. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respondent-claimant. 4. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 31.10.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to the ‘Tribunal’) in Claim Case No. 326/96 MAC (Smt. Thawri V/s Hurma & Ors.), whereby, the claim petition filed by the respondent/claimant was allowed and an amount of Rs.1,08,400/- was awarded as compensation on account of the injuries suffered by the respondent-claimant in the accident occurred on 15.05.1984. 5. Briefly noted the facts in the present appeal are that on 15.05.1984 at around 10:00 a.m., while respondent- claimant was going towards Udaipur, a Jeep bearing registration No. R.S.G.6740 being driven by Hurma met with an accident in which the respondent-claimant- Smt. Thawri sustained a number of injuries. She was taken to the hospital, where, she was given treatment. On account of this accident, the respondent-claimant- Smt. Thawari preferred a claim petition before the learned Tribunal and learned Tribunal, after framing the four issues, decided the claim petition vide judgment and award dated 31.10.2003. Aggrieved of the same, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 6. Nobody is present on behalf of the appellants, however, as per the memo of appeal, it shows that the appellants have preferred this appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal while passing the judgment and award dated 31.10.2003 has committed an illegality and the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the evidence available on record. 7. It is also mentioned in the appeal that the claim petition has been preferred after a delay of more than 11 years as the accident was occurred on 15.05.1984 and the claim petition was filed by the respondent-claimant on 20.06.1995 and there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay caused in approaching the learned Tribunal. On this ground, the judgment and award dated 31.10.2003 may be quashed and set-aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant submits that the factum of accident has been proved before the learned Tribunal by placing cogent evidence in the matter. On this ground, the judgment and award dated 31.10.2003 may be quashed and set-aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant submits that the factum of accident has been proved before the learned Tribunal by placing cogent evidence in the matter. He further submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on all the issues clearly goes to show that the respondent-claimant has met with an accident on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.2- Hurma while driving the Jeep of the appellants. Learned counsel further submits that even in the criminal case registered against respondent No.2- Hurma, the learned trial Court has passed an order of conviction. He also submits that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal while passing the judgment and award dated 31.10.2003 do not warrant any interference by this Court. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that the present civil misc. appeal may be dismissed. 9. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case. 10. The facts in the matter noted by the Tribunal clearly show that on 15.05.1984, the respondent-claimant- Smt. Thawari met with an accident with a Jeep of the appellants being driven by respondent No.2- Hurma. The respondent-claimant has suffered injuries and she was taken to the hospital. The documents with respect to the injuries and the bills of expenditure incurred for treatment have also been placed on record. The learned Tribunal has closely scanned the entire material and has come to the conclusion that the Jeep of the appellants driven by respondent No.2- Hurma met with an accident on 15.05.1984 in which the respondent-claimant sustained injuries for which she was given treatment at the General Hospital, Udaipur. 11. This Court also takes note of the fact that the amount incurred in the treatment and the injuries sustained were taken into consideration while calculating the compensation in the present case. In the considered opinion of this Court, no illegality has been committed by the learned Tribunal while awarding the compensation in the present case to the respondent-claimant. 12. This Court further takes note of the fact that in the criminal case filed against respondent No.2- Hurma, the competent criminal court has passed an order of conviction against Hurma and, therefore, the factum of accident has been established. 13. 12. This Court further takes note of the fact that in the criminal case filed against respondent No.2- Hurma, the competent criminal court has passed an order of conviction against Hurma and, therefore, the factum of accident has been established. 13. This Court is of the view that if the claim petition is filed at a belated stage then the same cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. C. Padma & Anr., reported in (2003) 7 SCC 713 . The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under :- 12. The learned counsel for the appellant next contended that since no period of limitation has been prescribed by the legislature, Article 137 of the Limitation Act may be invoked, otherwise, according to him, stale claims would be encouraged leading to multiplicity of litigation for non-prescribing the period of limitation. We are unable to countenance the contention of the appellant for more than one reason. Firstly, such an Act like the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, if otherwise the claim is found genuine. Secondly, it is a self-contained Act which prescribes the mode of filing the application, procedure to be followed and award to be made. Parliament, in its wisdom, realised the grave injustice and injury being caused to the heirs and legal representatives of the victims who suffer bodily injuries/die in accidents, by rejecting their claim petitions at the threshold on the ground of limitation, and purposely deleted sub-section (3) of Section 166 , which provided the period of limitation for filing the claim petitions and this being the intendment of the legislature to give effective relief to the victims and the families of the motor accidents untrammelled by the technicalities of the limitation, invoking of Article 137 of the Limitation Act would defeat the intendment of the legislature.” 14. In view of the discussions made above, this Court does not find any merit in the present civil misc. appeal. The present civil misc. appeal is, therefore, dismissed.