Koshy, J.

Both these appeals are filed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents “claims tribunal, thodupuzha in O.P. (MV) No.33 of 1995. M.F.A.No.421 of 1998 is filed by the claimant questioning the adequacy of the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal and M.F.A. No.1466 of 1998 is filed by the Kerala State Road Transport corporation, the respondent before the Tribunal, contending that the compensation awarded is excessive and arbitrary and also for exonerating the K.S.R.T.C. from paying the compensation. When execution proceedings were taken for realizing the amount awarded, the corporation filed O.P.No.20781 of 1998 for a direction to the second respondent not to attach the movable or immovable properties of the Corporation for realization of the award passed in O.P. (MV) No.3 of 1995. Both the appeals and the Original petition are being heard together.

2. The accident as per the claim petition occurred on 5.12.1978 at 4.15 p.m. while the appellant in M.F.A.No.421 of 1998 was walking home from school. According too him when he reached in front of the Bishop Vayalil Medical Centre, Moolamattom, a K.S.R.T.C. bus beating Registration No.N-47 owned by the respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and ran over his left leg causing serious crush injury. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the K.S.R.T.C. bus and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,64,650/- against a claim of Rs.4,00,000/-.

3. One objection taken by the learned counsel appearing for the corporation is that the accident alleged to have occurred in 1978 and the claim petition was filed only on 14.1.1995 and the claim petition is barred by limitation. Even though the accident occurred in 1978, claim petition was filed after 1988 Act came into force. There is no time limit for filing claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The original time limit prescribed was omitted by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 which came into force on 14.11.1994. The Supreme Court in Dhannalal V. D.P. Vijayavargiya, AIR 1998 SC 2155 held that the parliament in its wisdom has taken away the time limit prescribed in filling claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in all pending matters also on the date of amendment. Even if there is no limitation, claim petition cannot be filed without sufficient reasons after many years since the respondents will not be in a position to disprove the allegation at that distance of time. In the words, a state claim petition need not be treated at par with the claim petition filed within a reasonable time. In such cases, burden is heavy on the part of the claimant to prove that the accident occurred in the manner alleged.

4. In this case, the accident is alleged to have occurred on 5-12-1978. At that time, claimant was only a five-year school student. His parents did not file a claim on his behalf in time. He attained majority in 1991. But, claim petition was filed only in 1995, after 16 and half years of the alleged accident and four years after he attained majority. Driver of the bus against him allegation of negligence are made is not made a party. It is true that when there is joint tortfeasors impleadment of one of the tortfeasors may be enough (See: Simon Pathrose v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1994 (1) KLT 275). But, when negligence is alleged on the part of the driver, in the absence of any proof, it cannot be presumed that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus as held by the Supreme Court in Pushobai Parshottam Udeshi and Others v. M/s Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co. Pvt. Ltd. and another (AIR 1977 SC 1735). The maxim “res ipsa loquitur” also will come into play to the help of the claimant, only when the circumstances suggest negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The maxim “res ipsa loquitur” (the things speaks for itself) is not a rule of law. It is merely a rule of evidence. It does not alter th