JUDGMENT This revision-application is directed against, the Order dated 12.8.1994 passed by the VIth Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 14 of 1993 whereby he allowed the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay of two years and one month in preferring the claim case for awarding compensation to the non-applicants on account of death of Surya Karayan who died in Motor Accident on 30th June, 1991. It may be relevant here to mention the provisions of Sub-section (3) of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as follows:- No application for such compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident : Provided that the claims tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of period of six months, but not later than 12 months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by the sufficient cause for making the application in time. It is obvious that the claim case cannot be preferred not later than 12 months from the date of the accident. The question which falls for consideration in this revision-application is, whether the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1967, is applicable to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Apex Court in the case of Vinod Gurudas Raikar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., and others (1991 ACJ 1060) has clearly observed that; delay for a longer period than six months cannot be condoned for preferring the claim case before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The decision of the Apex Court in Vinod Gurudas Raikar's case demonstrates that the provisions of the Limitation Act, are not attracted to the Motor Vehicles Act which is a special Act. It is well settled, that the Special Act, overrides the provisions of General Act, therefore, Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, which is a General Act, cannot over-ride the provisions of section 166 (3) of the M.V. Act. In an identical case, where an application for claim was filed jointly by a major and a minor, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Poonam and another v. Phool Chand and others ( 1994 ACJ 1254 ) has observed, section 166 (3) of the M.V. Act is a Special provision which creates a bar to entertain any claim petition beyond a period of six months. The general provisions contained in section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot override the special provisions contained in section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, when the Parliament enacted the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,it was well aware of the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act creating a bar to the entertainment of claim petition by the Tribunal virtually setting at naught the human component involved in it. In the instant case, the non-applicants have admittedly preferred their claim before the Claims Tribunal after two years and one month from the date of the accident, which is beyond the period of Limitation prescribed under section 166 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act. For the reason aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly it is set aside, and in the result the revision-application is allowed.