IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO. NO.3085 OF 2006 DATE OF ORDER: 21.3.2009 Puran Singh ....Petitioner(s) Versus Bhikhi & others ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Ms. Monisha Lamba, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. T.S. Gujral, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Naveen Kapur, Advocate for respondent No.3. JASWANT SINGH, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant (injured) against the award dated 7.2.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Ad hoc)-cum-Presiding Officer Fast Track Court No.III, Faridabad whereby his claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) was dismissed. It is alleged that on 22.6.1991, the appellant Puran Singh was going in Tempo No.UP-85/9838, which was being driven by Bhikhi- respondent No.1, from Gaya to Math, District Mathura. At about 8.30 PM, a tractor trolley came at a high speed, which struck against the tempo as a result, appellant and other passengers of the said tempo sustained multiple grievous injuries. Appellant sustained multiple serious injuries all over body. He was taken to General Hospital, Mathura from where he was transferred to AIIMS, New Delhi. It is alleged that despite treatment, right leg of the appellant had to be amputated upto thigh and the appellant sustained permanent disability. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned FAO. NO.3085 OF 2006 #2# award. It is not in dispute that the accident took place on 22.6.1991 and as per Sub Section (3) of Section 166 of the Act as existing then, the appellant-claimant could file an application for compensation within six months from the date of occurrence of the accident. By virtue of the proviso to Sub Section (3) of Section 166 of the Act, the learned Tribunal could entertain the application even after expiry of six months but not later than 12 months if it was satisfied that the claimants were prevented by sufficient cause for moving the application in time. It is also not disputed that the aforesaid Sub Section (3) of Section 166 of the Act had been deleted from the statute w.e.f 14.11.1994 by Amending Act, 1953 of 1994. It is also not disputed that the claim petition was filed on 20.5.2001. Without going into further contentions of the parties, I am of the opinion that the claim petition filed by the appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 after a delay of almost a decade, otherwise, was not maintainable. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. Dismissed. March 21, 2009 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE