Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal is filed by the employer, M. P. Electricity Board, challenging the award dated 14-3-2001 passed by Commissioner, Workmen Compensation No. I, Gwalior in Case No. 4/99 WCA, whereby the Commissioner has awarded an amount of Rs. 46,714/ -. ( 2. ) THE brief facts of the case are that respondent, Lachchiram met with an accident during the course of his employment on 5-8-1996. He was paid compensation to the sum of Rs. 1,86,854/by the present appellant assessing his disablement at 80%. Ex. P-1 is the document showing the payment to the respondent. The services of the respondent were terminated by the employer vide Ex. P-2, dated 15-5-1998 on the ground that he is unable to perform his duties due to the accident. This order was passed on the basis of medical certificate (Ex. P-3), dated 16-12-1997. ( 3. ) ONCE the services of the employee are terminated on the ground that he is not fit to continue in the service due to the injuries sustained by him he becomes entitled to 100% disablement. In the present case as he was paid an amount of Rs. 1,86,854/- assessing his disablement at 80% the claim filed by the present respondent for payment of compensation assessing his disablement at 100%, i. e. , for the balance of the amount of compensation. The Commissioner awarded the claim of Rs. 46,714/- as the balance of compensation assessing his disablement at 100%. ( 4. ) THIS appeal is filed only on the question of limitation. Shri K. N. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that limitation as per Section 10 of the Workmen Compensation Act for filing the claim petition is two years when in the present case the application for payment of compensation is filed after 21-1-99, Le. , nearly two and half years of the accident. Hence, the claim petition is barred by limitation. Learned Counsel for the appellant has also urged that no application for condonation of delay is filed in the present case. Hence, it was incumbent for the Commissioner to dismiss the claim petition as barred by limitation. For this purpose the learned Counsel for appellant has referred to Section 10 (1) of the Workmen Compensation Act, which reads as under :- "10. Hence, it was incumbent for the Commissioner to dismiss the claim petition as barred by limitation. For this purpose the learned Counsel for appellant has referred to Section 10 (1) of the Workmen Compensation Act, which reads as under :- "10. Notice and claim.-- (i) No claim for compensation shall be entertained by a Commissioner unless notice of the accident has been given in the manner hereinafter provided as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and unless the claim is preferred before him within two years of the occurrence of the accident or, in case of death, within two years from the date of death: Provided. . . . . . " ( 5. ) SHRI R. P. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for respondent, opposed the argument raised by Shri K. N. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellants and urged that in the present case the appellant has no right to file claim petition for compensation for the remaining amount till his services were terminated on 15-5-1998. According to him, as per the assessment made by the employer on 7-4-1998 he was entitled to compensation only on the basis of 80% disablement which was paid to him. He, therefore, could not file the petition for compensation. The right to sue accrued to him only when his services were terminated on 15-54998 vide Annexure Ex. P-2. He became entitled to compensation on the basis of 100% disablement only after his services were terminated. Hence, the claim petition is within lime. ( 6. ) IT is true that Section 10 nowhere provides for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition. However, by virtue of Section 29 of the Limitation Act, the provisions of Limitation Act are applicable to the claim petition filed under the Workmen Compensation Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act provides that if there is a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing any appeal, application or other proceedings then the Court can condone the delay. In the present case, a separate application for condonation of delay is not filed. On the other hand, a statement is made by the claimant that cause of action accrued to him on 15-5-1998 and hence his claim petition is within limitation. In the present case, a separate application for condonation of delay is not filed. On the other hand, a statement is made by the claimant that cause of action accrued to him on 15-5-1998 and hence his claim petition is within limitation. It is true, that as per Section 10 (1) of the Workmen Compensation Act the cause of action accrues to the claimant on the date of accident and not from any other date. Thus, the contention of the claimant that cause of action has accrued to him on 15-5-1998 is not correct and the cause of action which starts to the application is from the date of accident, i. e. , 5-8-1996. However, I find that claimant in the present case has pleaded that he has no cause of action for filing the claim petition prior to 15-5-1998. In his claim petition he has pleaded the entire facts for not filing the claim petition before 15-5-1998 and thus, the reasons for not filing the claim petition prior to 15-5-1998 arc mentioned in the claim petition. Once, the reason for delay are there on record the Court can condone the delay even without a formal application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, ( 7. ) IN the present case, I find that there was sufficient cause for not filing claim petition before 15-5-1998 as theclaimant had no right to file a claim petition for remaining part of the compensation. The right for the same would accrue to him for the first time on 15-5-1998. Thus, his claim petition can not be said to be barred by limitation and delay in filing the claim petition is rightly condoned by the Claims Tribunal without any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. ( 8. ) IN the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels tee Rs. 1000/ -.