SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel representing the parties and we have also reviewed the record of the case. It is undoubtedly a very sad state of affairs because the two claimants are husband and wife. The husband at the relevant time was working as an Aircraft Engineer and the wife was a final year medical student who was riding on the pillion of the motorcycle. The Tribunal has recorded the finding that the scooter which was being driven by deceased Rajagopal was primarily responsible for the incident which resulted in injuries to all the 4 persons. However, on an assessment of the role played by the driver of the motorcycle, viz. , the present appellant in the first of these two appeals the Tribunal has finally apportioned the negligence to both the parties in the proportion of 50:50. This would mean that the present appellants would only be eligible for 50% of the compensation that is awarded. Though certain submissions were canvassed before us with regard to this aspect of the case, we find that it would neither be feasible nor proper for us to disturb this particular finding, the first reason being that it appears to be sustainable but more importantly because the other two parties are not before this court and the record also indicates that Rajagopal who was riding the scooter died after about 10 months. The real tragic aspect emanates from the fact that Rajgopals scooter was not insured and consequently, the liability if any would devolve on Rajgopal. Rajgopal having died the liability would devolve on his estate and having regard to the fact that there is no Insurance Company in the picture the possibility of the appellants recovering any compensation really becomes bleak. ( 2 ) THE appellants learned Counsel has pointed out to us that the two claim petitions were filed before the MACT approximately 9 months after the incident and that the delay of over 3 months has not been condoned by the Tribunal. ( 2 ) THE appellants learned Counsel has pointed out to us that the two claim petitions were filed before the MACT approximately 9 months after the incident and that the delay of over 3 months has not been condoned by the Tribunal. The reason set out by the Tribunal for refusing to condone the delay and for dismissing the application on this ground is that these appellants were respondents in the other claim petitions filed by Rajagopal and the pillion rider and that consequently, the notice in respect of those petitions had been served on the present appellants and it was therefore impossible for them to contend that they were unaware of the need to institute the proceedings within the prescribed time and likewise. After hearing the learned Counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the finding of the Tribunal as far as the bar of limitation is concerned is both harsh and unreasonable. We do not advocate the view that the courts must be over-liberal in the matter of condonation of delay but every case requires to be carefully assessed and it is very necessary that in cases where hardship is pleaded, in cases where incapacity is expressed that the court must adopt a considerate and understanding approach rather than a harsh and mechanical one as has been done in this case. In support of the application for condonation of delay the appellant-wife has pointed out that her husband was initially in an unconscious condition for about 45 days, that he was continuously hospitalised, that to start with she had also been injured herself and she was in the hospital for about two weeks and that they were required to go to different hospitals initially Mysore, then Puna and then Ananthpur. What has been pointed out to the Tribunal is that in the course of these treatments and in the course of having to attend the hospitals in different places that it was physically impossible for the appellants to have taken the necessary action to institute proceedings before the MACT at Mandya. The Tribunal has not applied its mind to the material placed before it and has very mechanically dismissed the applications on the ground that they are barred by limitation and that no cause is shown. The Tribunal has not applied its mind to the material placed before it and has very mechanically dismissed the applications on the ground that they are barred by limitation and that no cause is shown. Appellants learned advocate is right when he points out that on the material placed before the Tribunal in this case that a valid cause has been shown for the delay. He further points out that the delay was not for an abnormally long period and that it ought to have been condoned. We uphold these submissions, set aside the finding of the MACT and condone the delay in question. ( 3 ) AS far as the enhancement of compensation is concerned, though several submissions were advanced before us we refrain from interfering with the evaluation done by the Tribunal and the amount that has been quantified. The reason for this is because this is one more of the cases in which the requisite evidence and the requisite material were not produced before the Tribunal as a result of which the Tribunal was virtually helpless and was required to award only the global compensation. We uphold those orders which are to the effect that the appellants would be entitled to 50% recovery of the quantum in question along with interest from the respondent No. 1. ( 4 ) WITH these directions, the appeal which partially succeeds to stand disposed off. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .