vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3806 OF 1994 WRIT PETITION NO.3806 OF 1994 WRIT PETITION NO.3806 OF 1994 Vishnu M. Patil & anr. ... Petitioners V/s. Smt.Gayabai R. Gavte & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.R. Singh for Petitioners Mr.R.S. Datar for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. MHATRE, J. DATED: MARCH 27, 2008 MARCH 27, 2008 MARCH 27, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petition challenges the order condoning the delay in filing the claim application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. The Tribunal has allowed the application and condoned the delay and directed the claim be registered. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners i.e. the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and the insurance company, have challenged this order. 2. The facts in this case are not in dispute. The accident involving the vehicle occurred on 17.4.1989 at Miraj-Pandharpur Road, Sangli. An application for compensation of Rs.1 lakh was preferred by the claimants i.e. the respondents herein on 19.10.1991. This was accompanied by an application for condoning the delay. Petitioner No.2 opposed this application. The Tribunal : 2 : has by its order dated 12.7.1993 allowed the application and condoned the delay. 3. The main contention raised by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal was that the claim was barred by limitation since the claim petition was filed one year after the accident. It was contended that under section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the limitation was for a period of six months from the date of the accident and the Tribunal did not have the discretion to condone the delay. 4. Mr.Singh appearing for the petitioner fairly points out the decision, the Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Gurudas Raikar v/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 1991 ACJ 1060. 1991 ACJ 1060. 1991 ACJ 1060. The Supreme Court while considering the provisions of section 166(3) has held that where the accident occurred one year prior to the 1988 Act coming into force and the claim had been after the date of the enactment, it would be governed by limitation period stipulated in that Act. However, by an judgment in Dhannalal v/s. D.P. Vijayvargiya & Ors., 1996 ACJ 1013 1996 ACJ 1013 1996 ACJ 1013, the Supreme Court has held that subsection (3) was not deleted retrospectively but at the same time, there was nothing in the amending Act to show that the benefit of deletion of subsection was not to be extended to pending claim applications where a : 3 : plea of limitation had been raised. The Supreme Court has observed that when subsection (3) of section 166 has been deleted then the Tribunal has to entertain a claim application without taking note of the date on which such accident had taken place. The Supreme Court has observed that if the claimant is agitating his right to compensation, when the Amending Act deleting the period of limitation came into force, his application cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation. 5. Thus the claimants would be entitled to maintain their claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as the Amending Act deleting section 166(3) came into force during the pendency of this writ petition. The Tribunal has considered the application for condoning the delay on merits and in my opinion, has rightly allowed it. 6. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.