( 1 ) DOES the proviso to sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 restrict/limit the power of the Claims Tribunal to condone the delay caused in filing application for compensation to a period of 12 months from the date of occurrence of accident ? Does the proviso exclude expressly or otherwise the application of Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or principle underlying said Sec. 5 to an application for condonation of delay caused in filing the application for compensation ? These are the twin questions posed for consideration in these petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THESE two petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against the judgment and order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, porbandar, dated 18/07/1991 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition nos. 57 and 60 of 1991 respectively. By the said impugned judgment and order the Tribunal has rejected the applications of the petitioner in each case on the ground that such petition is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and since it is filed beyond six months after expiry of prescribed period of six months, the Tribunal has no authority in law to condone the delay. In Special Civil Application No. 5806 of 1991 the accident in question took place on 8/02/1990 and the petitioner (original claimant) sustained injuries. The Motor Accident Claim Petition is filed on 1-4-1991. Since the petition for compensation was filed beyond prescribed period of limitation and the same was not numbered and application of condonation of delay was numbered as Miscellaneous Claim Petition No. 561 of 1991.

( 3 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 5807 of 1991 the accident in question took place on 8-2-1990 and the Motor Accident Claim Petition came to be filed on 9-4-1991. Since the petition was filed beyond period of one year application for condonation of delay was registered as Miscellaneous Claim petition No. 560 of 1991.

( 4 ) IN view of the fact that any decision on the aforesaid question was likely to affect a large number of claimants, whose claim petitions were filed beyond the period of 12 months from the date of occurrence of the accident after coming into force of the new Act, and in view of the fact that the insurance Companies would like to contend that proviso to Sec. 166 (3) should be strictly construed so as to leave no scope for condonation of delay beyond the period of 12 months from the date of the occurrence of the accident, this Court invited the members of the Bar to address the Court at length on the effect of change in the language used in proviso to sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 166 of the New Act.

( 5 ) MR. C. D. Kakkad, Mr. T. S. Nanavaty, Mr. C. J. Vin and Mr. Mohit s. Shah have addressed the Court at length to contend that even after enactment of the New Act and despite enactment of proviso to sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 166 it should be held that the Claims Tribunal has power to condone delay beyond a period of six months by resort to Sec. 5 of Limitation Act because provisions of the Limitation Act are not expressly excluded by Motor Vehicles act, 1988. They have further submitted that Sec. 166 of the New Act is not a complete Code providing the entire procedure for making an application for condonation of delay. They have further submitted that there is no express prohibition enacted either under Sec. 166 or under any other provisions of the New Act prohibiting a Claims Tribunal from entertaining an application filed beyond the period of 12 months nor is there any provision which expressly excluded the application of the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 to the proceedings before a Claims Tribunal. The learned Counsels have referred to Sec. 29 (2) of the Limitation Act. Section 29 (2) reads as under :"sec. 29 (2 ). Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the schedule, the provisions of