Dipak Misra, J.
1. In this appeal the claimant-appellant has assailed the award dated 16.9.1999 passed in M.V.C. No. 2 of 1998 by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dindori.
2. On a perusal of the award, it is discernible that the death of Tulak Singh has occurred on 26.2.1989, in an accident caused by motor cycle. The claim petition was filed by his daughter in the year 1998. Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim petition on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal in para 8 has recorded a finding that though there has been deletion of Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claim was barred by time when the said provision was in force and, therefore, the claim could not be entertained.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid, the claim case was dismissed. That apart, the Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the claim petition was not tenable as the death had occurred after five days of the accident. Assailing the aforesaid award it is submitted by Mr. Lalwani, the learned Counsel for the claimant that the finding of the Tribunal that the death had occurred after 5 days is inconsequential inasmuch as the death had taken place on account of injuries sustained in the accident. We are of the opinion that the submission of Mr. Lalwani has sufficient force. On that ground alone, the Tribunal should not have dismissed the case.
4. Next question raised for consideration is whether the Claims Tribunal was justified in dismissing the application for grant of compensation on the ground of limitation. In the case of Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya : AIR1996SC2155 , the two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court in paras 7 and 8 expressed the view as under:
(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 Sub-section (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? 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 Sub-section (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 with effect from 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 interest 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:
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 incharge 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 incharge of the police station is enjoined to forward a copy of information/report regarding the accident to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction. A copy thereof has also to be forwarded to the concerned insurer. 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) from 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 condonation of delay in filing the claim petition is pending either before the Tribunal, High Court or the Supreme Court. The present appeal is one such case. The appellant has been pursuing from 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) The matter will be different if any claimant having filed a petition for claim beyond time which has been rejected by the Claims 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, High Court or this court. In such cases, the benefit of the amendment of Sub-section (3) of Section 166 should be extended.
5. We have quoted the aforesaid judgment in extenso to understand the view expressed by their Lordships of Supreme Court. While dealing with the deletion of Sub-section (3) of Section 166, it has been laid down that when Section 166(3) has been omitted then the Tribunal should entertain the claim petition without taking note of the date of accident. The claim petition cannot be thrown out that such claim is barred by time when unamended Section 166 was in force. Their Lordships have made distinction in respect of only one category of case, namely, if the claim case had been filed by a claimant which had been rejected by the High Court and the claimant had not challenged the same and allow the same to become final, Amending Act would be of no assistance to him. The instant case presents a different picture and falls in a different compartment. The omission of Sub-section (3) of Section 166 has a different tenor as observed by their Lordships. Hence we have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal has erroneously recorded the finding in this regard.
6. Resultantly, we allow the appeal, set aside the award passed by the Tribunal and remit the matter to the Claims Tribunal with a direction to proceed with the claim petition in accordance with law.
7. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove, without any order as to costs.
C.C. as per rules.