K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

M. F. A. No. 850 was filed with a petition to condone the delay of 3307 days. M. F. A. No. 511 of 2000 was filed with a petition to condone the delay of 3320 days. M. F. A. No. 43 of 2000 was filed with a petition to condone the delay of 3211 days. In M. F. A. No. 511 of 2000 counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent opposing the petition for condonation of delay. Same is the stand of the second respondent in the other two cases also.

2. Before examining the question as to whether petitions to condone the delay in all these appeals are to be allowed or not, we may examine the facts in these cases which has some bearing with regard to the exercise of discretion by this Court in condoning the delay.

3. Claim petitions arise out of an accident occurred on 10. 3.1972 at 8 RM. when stage carriage bus bearing registration number KLK 9651 fell into a ravine at Vellathooval. Several persons died on the spot and some others sustained serious injuries. Though accident occurred on 10.1.1973 no claim petition was preferred on behalf of the petitioners. The first petitioner was born on 20.5.1966. Claim petition was filed on 30.6.1986, 543 days after attaining majority. Second petitioner was born on 30.1.1968 and attained majority on 30.1.1986. The claim petition was however filed on 30.6.1986, within six months from the date of attaining majority.

4. Claimants in O.P. (M.V.) No. 222/88 are the daughters of one Thomas who died in the accident. Application was preferred on 31.1.1987. Claimants were minors on the date of the accident as well as on the date when the application was filed. Widow of the deceased was made third respondent in the petition. O. P. (M. V. ) No. 223 of 1988 was filed by the widow and children of one Ulahannan who also died in the accident. O. P. (M. V. ) No. 407 of 1998 was filed on 3.12.1987. First claimant was the widow and claimants 2 to 7 are the children of one Chacko. Petitioners 3 and 4

though attained majority did not make an application in time. Petitioners 5, 6 and 7 were minors at the time of submitting the application. In all the abovementioned applications, claim was made for an amount of Rs. 1, 00, 000/-. All the above applications were resisted by the owner as well as the insurer stating that the applications were hopelessly barred by limitation and consequently the same had to be dismissed. Applications were dismissed by the Tribunal stating as follows:

"As I stated earlier the provision of the Limitation Act is not made applicable to the proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act. Minority may be pleaded as a valid ground, but the party is not entitled to get exclusion of the period. The guardian has not offered explanation why he did not file the petition for the fifteen years from the date of accident. Hence I find the petitioners have not offered any valid explanation for condoning the delay and I find O. P. is barred by limitation. "

With regard to no fault liability, the Tribunal held as follows:

"In this connection I may also state that no claim is made in any of the Original Petitions based either under S.92(A) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1932 or under S.140 of the Act 59 of 1988. The accident took place on 10.5. 1972. Claim Tribunals were constituted in the State only in the year 1977 by notification dated 25. 7.1977. Until then the remedy of aperson aggrieved was to approach civil court. As far as some of the petitioners are concerned the right to claim compensation was barred on the date of constitution of the Claims Tribunals. S.92(A) itself was introduced in the statute book only in the year 1982. On that date no claim petitions were pending. Hence 1 do not think it is proper to grant any relief under the no fault liability also suo motu in these cases. "

Aggrieved by the orders of the Tribunal these appeals have been preferred with petitions for condonation of delay.

5. Sri. K K. Chandran Pillai appeared for the appellant in all these cases. Sri. P. Gopala