SAPRU, J. ( 1 ) GOYA Din is the appellant in this case. The respondent is the U. P. State Road Transport corporation. ( 2 ) THE appellant was crushed by a bus belonging to;the Corporation on April 10, 1974, at about 3 p. m. and as a consequence of the accident one of his legs had to be amputated at S. R. N. Hospital, Allahabad. ( 3 ) THE appellant is a vendor of milk, curd and ghee, and is a resident of village Ratiyahi, P. S. Therewai, district Allahabad. He moved an application under Sections 110a of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939, claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 52,500. The application was filed much beyond six months which is the limitation period for filing a claim petition. The appellant also claimed the benefit of the provisions of Sections 110a of the Act which authorises the claims Tribunal to entertain a claim petition if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making an application in time. This application of the appellant has been dismissed. It is against this order dismissing the application and the consequential order dismissing the claim petition that this appeal has been filed. ( 4 ) THE appellant has stated that he was released from the hospital on January 19, 1975, and after that he had been asking the authorites for compensation. It was stated that the appellant was hopeful that he would get the relief from the authorites and, as such, the applicant did not file the claim petition. It was also stated that initially the Corporation had sanctioned an ex gratia sum of rs. 500 in favour of the appellant which he did not get. ( 5 ) THE appellant is a person who resides in a village and is not aware of the law. In view of his physical incapacity, he was not in a position to obtain proper and competent legal advice in regard to his right to compensation. 500 in favour of the appellant which he did not get. ( 5 ) THE appellant is a person who resides in a village and is not aware of the law. In view of his physical incapacity, he was not in a position to obtain proper and competent legal advice in regard to his right to compensation. ( 6 ) WE are, therefore, satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the appellant for not applying for compensation to the Claims Tribunal within the time specified under Sections 110a of the act, ( 7 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed, the award of the Claims Tribunal dated July 14, 1977, as also the order dated July 14, 1977, rejecting the application under Sections 5 of the Limitation act are set aside. We condone the delay and direct the Claims Tribunal to decide the claim petition on merits within three months, if possible, from the date of the presentation of a copy of this order. We make no order as to costs in this appeal. .