Judgment Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. 1. On July 27, 1980 Car No. PUC-2169 and Truck No. PBW 335 were involved in an accident. Devinder Singh, one of the passengers in the car died. Madan Gopal Aggarwal and Suresh Chander Aggarwal had sustained injuries. On February 28, 1981 the two injured persons filed separate claim petitions under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 . The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the following three issues:- 1. Whether the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Truck No. PBW 335, being driven by Karam Singh? 2. To what amount of compensation, is the claimant entitled and from whom ? 3. Relief. On issue No. 1. the Tribunal held that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of Mukhtiar Singh, the driver of Car No. PUC 2169. On issue No. 2, the Tribunal determined the amount of compensation due to the claimants. Under issue No. 3, the Tribunal held that the claim petition "is clearly time barred." Thus, the claims of both the injured persons were declined. 2 Aggrieved by the award, the two claimants have filed these two appeals. 3. Clearly these have remained pending for the last about 15 years. Efforts to settle the matter before the Lok Adalat appear to have failed. 4. Mr. Lalit Mohan Suri, learned counsel for the appellants in these two appeals, has made a two-fold submission. Firstly, it has been contended that the truck was parked in the middle of the road. The tail light had not been put on. No warning had been given. There was no signal to warn the traffic. As a result, the truck driver was clearly guilty of negligence. In any event, the counsel submits, the truck driver cannot be absolved of contributory negligence. Secondly, it has been submitted that the Tribunal had not framed a specific issue regarding limitation. That being so, the claimants had no opportunity to lead evidence and to prove that the delay, if any, deserved to be condoned. 5. A perusal of the award shows that the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the claim petitions filed by the two injured persons were barred by limitation. Limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. 5. A perusal of the award shows that the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the claim petitions filed by the two injured persons were barred by limitation. Limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. If a party is sought to be non-suited on the ground of limitation, there should be a specific issue and an opportunity to lead evidence. In the present case no issue was framed specifically regarding limitation. In this situated, the claimants did not get a clear opportunity to prove the essential and relevant facts. There was failure of justice. 6. In this situation there is no alternative except to afford an opportunity to the appellants to prove the relevant facts. 7. Consequently, the awards are set aside. The cases are remitted to the Tribunal for framing an issue regarding limitation and to allow the parties to adduce the relevant evidence. It shall be appreciated if the Tribunal disposes of the matter expeditiously. 8. No costs, the records shall be immediately sent to the Tribunal.