SADH RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of the following appeals, as the point involved in these appeals is the same:

(2.) THE accident took place before coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but the claim petitions were filed after coming into force of the said Act. As there was delay in filing the claim petitions, an application was filed for condonation of delay of the period of limitation. By the impugned orders, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal relying on un-amended Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1988') refused to condone the delay, as the claim petitions were filed beyond the period of 12 months, as contained in the said sub-section. Hence, the present appeals.

(3.) TO appreciate the contention raised before us at the Bar, it is necessary to quote the relevant sections of the Acts of 1939, 1988 and 1994 and also the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act of 1994.