Judgment A.K. Shrivastava, J;- 1. This appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short "the Act") has been filed by the appellant/claimant against the order dated 11.4.2011 passed by learned Railway Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in Case No. IIu/402/09 dismissing the claim application to be barred by time. In the claim application it has been pleaded by the claimant/appellant that in a Railway accident his both legs were amputated and hence, it has been prayed that compensation be awarded to him. An application under Section 17 of the Act to condone the delay in filing the claim application was submitted by the claimant/appellant. 2. In the reply filed on behalf of the Railway administration it has been submitted that sufficient reasons are not assigned in the application to condone the delay and therefore, it be dismissed. 3. The learned Tribunal has rejected the application and eventually dismissed the claim application of the appellant. In this manner this appeal has been filed by the appellant before this Court. I have heard Shri R.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Amrit Ruprah, learned counsel for the respondent and having heard them, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. On bare perusal of the impugned order it is gathered that the accident occurred on 3.4.2003 and the claim application was submitted on 5.3.2008. Indeed, on the date of accident, the claimant/appellant was near about 16 years old since on 4.8.2005 he submitted an application along with his Higher Secondary mark-sheet in which his date of birth is mentioned as 4.8.1987. Hence, on the date of the accident (i.e. 3.4.2003) he was minor and he became major only on 4.8.2005. True, there is no legal bar in filing the claim application when the appellant was minor but at the same time under Sections 6 and 7 of the Indian Limitation Act he can file the lis within three years from the date of attaining the age of majority. The provisions of the Limitation Act are not expressly barred under the Act. Therefore, since the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is a beneficial legislation, even if the claim application was barred by time, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it should have been condoned by the learned Tribunal. 5. The provisions of the Limitation Act are not expressly barred under the Act. Therefore, since the Railway Claims Tribunal Act is a beneficial legislation, even if the claim application was barred by time, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it should have been condoned by the learned Tribunal. 5. On bare perusal of the material placed on record and the medical evidence filed by the appellant in the Tribunal it is gathered that his mental status was not in equilibrium and this can be made understandable because his both the legs were amputated and therefore, in these state of affairs, I am of the view that the application to condone the delay deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside and the learned Claims Tribunal is hereby directed to decide the claim application of the appellant on its own merit. 6. Resultantly, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed with no order as to costs. The parties are hereby directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 17th December, 2012. The Registry is hereby directed to send the record posthaste so as to reach the Tribunal much prior to 17th December, 2012.