JUDGMENT Mr. Ajay Tewari, J.: (Oral) - This review petition has been filed for modification of the order dated 12.03.2014 passed in the aforesaid appeal. The appellants are seeking interest on the enhanced amount and there is a delay of 222 days in filing the present review application. 2. The appeal was originally decided on 12.03.2014. Thereafter, the respondent-insurance company filed a review application on the ground that the future prospects had wrongly been fixed at 50% and as per the age of the deceased should have been 15%. Notice was issued to the appellants. Learned counsel appeared and accepted that the future prospects had wrongly been fixed at 50% and also pointed out that the multiplier had been fixed at 9 instead of 11. Even though no review application had been filed on behalf of the appellants, in the interest of justice that prayer was allowed. There is no explanation as to why the prayer now being sought to be made was not made at that time and the present application has been filed along with the delay of 222 days. No doubt in cases of accidents Courts are not supposed to take too strict and pedantic a view and are supposed to construe this beneficial legislation liberally. However, that would not extend to the condonation of large-scale negligence. In the present case, no reason has been shown as to why the present prayer was not made at that time when the appeal was decided or at the time when the review application filed by the insurance company was decided and that why it took 222 days to move the present application. 3. In the circumstances, the application for condonation of delay is declined and the review petition is dismissed being barred by limitation. ---------0.B.S.0------------