agk WP4711/4733/4738/4739-08 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4711 OF 2008 Amita A. Patwardhan & Ors. .. Petitioners versus Pramajitsingh Haramsingh & Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.4733 OF 2008 Abhishek A. Patankar & Anr. .. Petitioners versus Pramajitsingh Haramsingh & Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.4738 OF 2008 Amita A. Patwardhan & Ors. .. Petitioners versus Pramajitsingh Haramsingh & Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.4739OF 2008 Maitrai Amar Kanade & Ors. .. Petitioners versus Pramajitsingh Haramsingh & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Nilima Gohad for the petitioners. None for the respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 7th September 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Notice for final agk WP4711/4733/4738/4739-08 (2) disposal was issued on 17th December 2009. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that notice of the petition has been served to all concerned respondents. The respondents are claimants in claim petitions filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The claim petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed for non prosecution as against the opponent Nos.1 and 2 therein on the ground that no steps were taken for effecting service of notice to 1st and 2nd opponents. Therefore, applications were made by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 6th January 2003 by which claim petitions were dismissed as against opponent Nos.1 and 2. By the impugned orders, the applications for restoration made by the petitioners have been dismissed. 2 Perusal of the impugned orders shows that the applications have been dismissed on the ground that there is a delay of four years in filing applications for restoration. The learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has not only taken a very hyper-technical approach but has completely ignored that there is no period of limitation for filing a claim petition for compensation under section 166 of the said Act. Even on the date on which applications for restoration were made, the petitioners could have filed fresh claim petitions. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to agk WP4711/4733/4738/4739-08 (3) be quashed and set aside. 3 Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The impugned orders dated 7th April 2008 is quashed and set aside and applications at Exhibit 49 filed by the petitioners in all the claim petitions are hereby allowed and the claim petitions are restored as against 1st and 2nd opponents therein. (b) Petition is allowed in above terms with no orders as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J)