BINOD KUMAR ROY, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant united India Insurance Co. Ltd. assails validity of the judgment dated 16. 2. 2001 passed by Mr. Jagannath, H. J. S. , 5th Additional district Judge, Mainpuri/motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Mainpuri. ( 2 ) THE sole submission made by Mr. A. C. Nigam on the question of admission of this appeal is that the claim petition having been filed after six years from the date of accident it ought to have been rejected under the residuary Article 137 of the limitation Act as only three years period was available for its filing. ( 3 ) IN our view the submission is wholly devoid of substance for more than one reasons: (A) Earlier under sub-section (3) of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act six months period was prescribed for filing a claim petition. Under its proviso jurisdiction was also vested in the Claims tribunal to entertain time-barred petitions up to 12 months. However, subsection (3) was omitted by section 53 of Act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14. 11. 1994. Thus, the net result is that no period stands prescribed by the statute for filing of a claim petition. (B) Article 137 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes three years rule of limitation has not been made applicable to an application for compensation filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988. ( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY the solitary submission is rejected and no other submission having been made to show prima facie that the finding of Claims Tribunal awarding only rs. 1,73,400 as compensation on account of rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus in question resulting in death of roop Singh, the bread earner of the family of the claimant is erroneous, we dismiss this appeal summarily. Appeal dismissed. .