W.P.NO.2179-93 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2462 OF 1995 Mohammed Nashin Mohammed Anis .. Petitioner versus Girish Kumar Sawala .. Respondents None present for the petitioner. Mr.Ranjan Tripathi i/by Mr.S.M.Vidyarathi for respondent No.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 30th August 2010. JUDGMENT: . None appears for the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the 2nd respondents. This petition filed by the original claimant in claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has remained pending for last fifteen years. I have perused the petition and annexures to the petition as well as impugned order. 2. According to the petitioner he met with a motor accident on 9th May 1993 and sustained injuries. On 14th January 1994 he filed a claim petition W.P.NO.2179-93 (2) under section 166 of the said Act. There was a delay in filing a claim petition and therefore, an application for condonation of delay was made by the petitioner. By the impugned order the said application has been rejected. 3. Under sub-section 3 of section 166 of the said Act, period of limitation of six months from the date of occurance of the accident was provided for filing a claim petition. Proviso to sub-section 3 gave power to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to entertain the application for compensation after the expiry of said period of six months but not later than twelve months provided the claimant satisfies the Tribunal that there was a sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The said sub-section 3 prescribing period of limitation was omitted by Act No.54 of 1994 with effect from 14th November 1994. The Apex Court has held that the said amendment will apply retrospectively. 4. Apart from this, the delay was only of 64 days. The learned Member of the Tribunal has gone into the merits of the allegations made by the petitioner as regards involvement of the vehicle of the 1st respondent. The said approach appears to be completely erroneous. The impugned order itself records that till 19th May 1993 the petitioner was hospitalised and W.P.NO.2179-93 (3) thereafter the petitioner continued to be under treatment for a considerably long time and was required to undergo physiotherapy. The claim petition was filed on 14th January 1994. The learned Member of the Tribunal ought to have adopted justice oriented and liberal approach and ought to have condoned the delay. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The impugned order dated 25th July 1994 is quashed and set aside and application for condonation of delay being Application No. 248 of 1994 stands allowed. (b) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal shall register the claim petition and shall also issue notice of the date fixed to the petitioner. (c) All contentions of the parties in the main claim petition are kept open. (d) Rule is made absolute in above terms with no orders as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J)