IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2137 OF 1996 PETITION NO. 2137 OF 1996 PETITION NO. 2137 OF 1996 Sangita w/o. Kisan alias Krishnath Sathe & another. ... Petitioners. Vs. Malkappa Sayannappa Valikar and others. ... Respondents. S.U.Dhakephalkar for the petitioners. S.M.Vidyarthi for respondent No.3. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. V.C.DAGA, J. V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: 11th August 2008. 11th August 2008. 11th August 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : ---- --- --- . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and leaned counsel for respondent No.3. None appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in spite of service. 2. The present petition is directed against the order dated 1st July, 1995 passed by the Ex-Officio Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solapur allowing the application for condonation filed on behalf of minor petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 and rejected the application for condonation of petitioner No.1. 3. Having seen the impugned order, it is not in dispute that sufficient cause was shown and, consequently, delay came to be condoned in respect of minor petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4. Whereas delay in moving claim application on behalf of petitioner No.1 could not be condoned relying upon the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988; wherein there was no power to condone delay. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the amendment dated 14th November, 1994, no limitation is prescribed for preferring claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He submits that the amendment is procedural and will operate with retrospective effect. He placed reliance on the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Suman Arjun Shegokar v. Prasad Suman Arjun Shegokar v. Prasad Suman Arjun Shegokar v. Prasad Gopalrao Gopalrao Gopalrao Chirkuri Chirkuri Chirkuri, 2005 (2) Bom.C.R. 955; wherein the learned single Judge relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deepa v. Yella, Deepa v. Yella, Deepa v. Yella, AIR 1965 SC 240, ruled that amendment of 1994 shall operate with retrospective effect; wherein no limitation is prescribed. The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company tried to contend that cause of action is a date of accident as such provisions prevailing on the date will have to be taken into consideration. The submission is misplaced in view of the judgment of the learned single Judge in Suman Suman Suman Arjun Shegokar Arjun Shegokar Arjun Shegokar (supra) and in view of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Dhannalal v. Dhannalal v. Dhannalal v. D.P.Vijayvargiya D.P.Vijayvargiya D.P.Vijayvargiya, AIR 1996 SC 2155. 5. In the above view of the matter, for the reasons recorded, delay is condoned. The impugned order dated 1st July, 1995 to the extent it rejects the application for condonation of delay of petitioner No.1 is set aside. Application for condonation of delay of petitioner No.1 is allowed. The claim petition is restored to the file of the Motor Accident Tribunal, Solapur with direction to decide the same on its own merits in accordance with law. Considering the pendency of this petition and the matter being old, the Tribunal is directed hear and decide the claim petition as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. Application is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, (V.C.DAGA, (V.C.DAGA, J.) J.) J.)