JUDGMENT - Pratap S.C., J. : - This revision application by one Ashabai widow of Dattatraya Karambelkar is directed against the order dated 7th April 1979 passed by the President, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, rejecting Ashabais application for condonation of delay in the filing of her Claim Case No. 12 of 1978 before the said Tribunal and which case related to compensations consequent upon the accident that took place on 9th April 1977 resulting in the death of her husband, the late Dattatraya. 2. On 9th April 1977 Ashabais husband Dattatraya, who was a Government pensioner aged about 65 years old, was going on a bicycle. A motor vehicle, namely, a truck bearing No. MHG 3815, belonging to respondent No. 1 herein, dashed against Dattatraya and his bicycle, as a result whereof, Dattatraya fell down, suffered an accident and died on the same day at about 6.30 in the evening. His widow, the present petitioner- Ashabai, thereupon filed the instant case for compensation in the sum of Rs. 10000 from Respondent No. 1, the owner of the truck, as also respondent No. 2, the Insurance Company. There being delay in the filing of the said case, the petitioner prayed for condonation thereof. The Tribunal having rejected the said prayer. the petitioner Ashabai, has hence approached this Court by the present revision application. 3. In support of this petition, I have heard Mr. P. A. Halve, the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Respondent No. 1, the owner of the truck, though duly served, has not chosen to appear either personally or through any Advocate of this Court. Respondent No. 2, the Insurance Company, appears through its learned Advocate Mr. G. S. Padhye. 4. Hearing the rival submissions of the respective Advocates, I find the impugned order unsustainable. Though the accident occurred on 9th April 1977 and period of limitation for a claim for compensation was six months therefrom, the Tribunal itself had not been established till nearly seven months thereafter on 1st November 1977. Moreover, the petitioner had averred that in view of her husbands tragic death, she was over-come by severe mental shock and could not, consequently, even think of compensation. Still further, she had also submitted that her relations advised her that limitation for approaching Court was two years. Moreover, the petitioner had averred that in view of her husbands tragic death, she was over-come by severe mental shock and could not, consequently, even think of compensation. Still further, she had also submitted that her relations advised her that limitation for approaching Court was two years. In all these circumstances, too technical a view of the matter has resulted in miscarriage of justice to a widow. It is also unfortunate that widow Ashabais claim based upon the tragic death of her husband Dattatraya, a retired Government pensioner, should be sought to be defeated by the truck owner and the Insurance Company on the ground of delay. The conduct in particular of the Insurance Company is one which cannot be appreciated. 5. Delay in the filing of the petition there undoubtedly is. But that is precisely why the prayer to condone it is made and power to grant the same is conferred. Delays are not unheard of in Court proceedings. This is not a case of utter negligence on the part of Ashabai, nor is it a case of any contumacious conduct on her part. In this view, condonation, particularly in a most tragic case as the instant one, should generally be rather a rule than an exception. In such cases, to insist on sufficient cause being established with great meticulousness is akin to pursuing a technicality at the cost of grave injustice to a forlorn widow bereft of her husband who was the unfortunate victim of a fatal accident. Again, as is not unknown, countless widows in this country are hardly aware of their legal rights and for of Constitution of special Tribunal, for the enforcement thereof. Here, indeed, is a classic case of widow approaching on her husbands death one such special tribunal with a simple prayer for condoning delay in claiming compensation and deciding her case on merits, but receiving a tragic blow by her remedy being nipped in the bud and her quest for justice extinguished ab initio. Denial of condonation in a case such as this is almost equivalent to denial of justice, The benign object of a social welfare measure should not have been permitted to be defeated by the truck owner and the Insurance Company. With respect, the tribunal has given undue importance to the shadow at the cost of the substance. Denial of condonation in a case such as this is almost equivalent to denial of justice, The benign object of a social welfare measure should not have been permitted to be defeated by the truck owner and the Insurance Company. With respect, the tribunal has given undue importance to the shadow at the cost of the substance. This, in my view, was preeminently a fit case for condoning the delay and hearing Ashabai on merits. 6. As observed by the Supreme Court in the case of [New India Insurance Co. v. Smt. Shanti Misra]1 A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 237: “Appropos the bar of limitation provided in section 110A(3), one can say that strictly speaking, the bar does not operate in relation to an application for compensation arising out of an accident which occurred prior to the Constitution of the Claims Tribunal. But since in such a case there is a change of forum, the reasonable view to take would be that such an application can be filed within a reasonable time 01 the Constitution of the Tribunal, which ordinarily and generally, would be the time of limitation mentioned in sub-section (3).” With an equally important further observation: “If the application could not be made within that time from the date of the Constitution of the Tribunal, in a given case, the further time taken in the making of the application may be held to be the reasonable time on the facts of that case for the making of the application or the delay made after the expiry of the period of limitation provided in subsection (3) from the date of the Constitution of the Tribunal can be condoned under the proviso to that sub-section.” In the result, this petition succeeds, The impugned order is set aside. Delay in the filing of Claim Case No. 12 of 1978 is condoned. The Tribunal is now directed to proceed further therewith and to hear and decide the me on merits and in accordance with law but expeditiously. 7. Rule earlier issued on this petition is made absolute. 8. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. -----