JUDGMENT : P.K. Goswami, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissing the claim of the Applicant-Appellant on the ground of limitation. There is an alternative application under Article 227 of the Constitution. 2. The accident occurred on 21.9.62 and the claim application was received by the Tribunal on 20.11.62. The Tribunal finds that the application was received on the sixty-first day whereas it should have been received within sixty days of the occurrence of the accident, as laid down u/s 110A(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to the exclusion of the date on which the accident occurred u/s 12(1) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. It is true, the Motor Vehicles Act u/s 110A(3) provides for limitation of sixty days. There is, however, no limitation provided for under the Limitation Act. That is to say, the Limitation Act omits to provide limitation for a claim of this nature and that is specifically provided in the special law, namely the Motor Vehicles Act, The Supreme Court while dealing with this point in the case of Vidyacharan Shukla v. Khubchand Baghel and Ors. AIR 1965 S.C. 1099, following an earlier decision of the same court, Kaushalya Rani Vs. Gopal Singh, held that even if there is an omission in the Limitation Act in providing a period of limitation which a special law provides for, such provision in the special law is different from that provided for in the Limitation Act. That being the position, Section 29(2)(a) of the Limitation Act applies in the instant case, and by virtue of that provision, since Section 12 is not expressly excluded in the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is entitled to the exclusion of the date of the occurrence, namely 21.9.62, u/s 12(1) of the Limitation Act. In that view of the matter, the claim application is within time. The order of the Tribunal dismissing the claim application on the ground of limitation is, therefore, erroneous and that is set aside. The Tribunal wrongly refused to entertain and adjudicate the claim. 4. The appeal, at any rate, the alternative application under Article 227 of the of Constitution of India, is accordingly allowed. The records shall be despatched immediately to the Tribunal for an expeditious disposal of the claim in accordance with law. The Tribunal wrongly refused to entertain and adjudicate the claim. 4. The appeal, at any rate, the alternative application under Article 227 of the of Constitution of India, is accordingly allowed. The records shall be despatched immediately to the Tribunal for an expeditious disposal of the claim in accordance with law. The Appellant is entitled to costs from the Insurance Company which we assess at Rs. 100/-. M.C. Pathak, J. 5. I agree.