Vide Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 1994, which came into force w.e.f. 14.11.1994, the limitation to file claim petition was done away with. Subsection (3) of Section 166 of the 1988 Act, which provided for limitation for filing of claim petition was deleted. As a result of this, the claim petition filed by the appellants in the present case on 25.4.1988 could not have been dismissed by the Tribunal by holding that the same was time barred. He further submitted that the issue came up for consideration before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya, 1996(3) PLR 656 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. C. Padma and another, (2003) 7 SCC 713 and a Division Bench of this Court in Darshan v. Devinder Singh and another, 2006(3) PLR 307, wherein it was opined that even if any accident had taken place prior to the deletion of sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the 1988 Act, the claim petition even if filed thereafter would not be barred by time. It was further opined therein that in case any claim petition had earlier been dismissed as time-barred, but the proceedings were pending in any court, the same shall also be considered to be within limitation, as those claimants will not be at a worse position than a claimant who had not filed any claim petition by that time, as in terms of the amended provisions, a fresh claim petition could be filed. However, it was opined that the claim petitions, which were dismissed and the orders thereof had already attained finality, those proceedings will not be reopened.
