1. The claimants in MVC No.466/2008 on the file of MACT, Hassan, have come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation for the death of the wife of first appellant and mother of appellants 2 and 3, who died in a road traffic accident dated 02.01.2008 involving Maruti Omni belonging to the first appellant and Canter goods vehicle belonging to first respondent and insured with second respondent. The accident dated 02.01.2008 is not in dispute. So also the death of Prameela, inmate of Maruti Omni bearing registration No.KA03/MB7715. It is further not in dispute that the accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of Canter goods vehicle bearing No.KA52/2252. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, claimants contended that deceased Prameela who was aged about 29 years was a Computer Operator and earning a sum of Rs.6,000/p.m. as per Ex.P8 and sought for compensation in a sum of Rs.20,00,000/. In the said proceedings on behalf of the claimants, evidence was adduced by the husband of the deceased as PW1 and the author of Ex.P8 was examined as PW2. The Tribunal considering the evidence of PW2 accepted the employment of deceased Prameela and awarded compensation to claimants in sum of Rs.5,58,400/. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the appeal is filed along with an application in I.A.No.1/2012 seeking condonation of inordinate delay of 543 days.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the entire affidavit filed in support thereof. On going through the affidavit, it is seen that after the death of Prameela, maintaining the family was on the shoulder of deponent Kumar M.S., who is first appellant and it is also stated that the deceased was contributing major part of her earning to the welfare of family. After her demise, it has affected the financial condition of family. The cumulative effect of all this, has resulted in the first claimant not being in a position to pursue the status of his claim petition before MACT. It is only recently i.e., prior to filing of the appeal when he contacted his Counsel he was informed that the compensation awarded is on the lower side and hence, appeal is required to be filed seeking enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, the appeal is filed with inordinate delay of 543 days.

3. Though the reasons stated in the affidavit cannot be accepted, on going through the pleadings and evidence, which is discussed as above, it is seen that the claimants have sought for compensation on the basis that deceased Prameela was working as Computer Operator. Accordingly, the claimants have lost substantial income to the family. The Tribunal believing the averments in the claim petition as well as the evidence of PW2 and Ex.P8 has awarded substantial compensation to claimants in a sum of Rs.5,18,400/towards Loss of Dependency.

4. When this Court went through the entire record, it is seen that the entire basis for claim petition itself is false. The police documents would indicate that at the time of accident, it is informed to the police that deceased was a housewife and nowhere it was mentioned that she was gainfully employed. However, in the claim petition entire thing is put in the manner to show that she was employed and earning a sum of Rs.6,000/p.m. This kind of deceitful act was not required to be adopted by the claimants for the reason that, even assuming that deceased Prameela was not gainfully employed at the relevant point of time, the Court would have taken notional income as if she would have earned that money and awarded just and proper compensation.

5. In the instant case, there is deceitful method adopted by the claimants to claim excess compensation and the claimants have managed to secure the same in the Tribunal awarding compensation for ‘Loss of Dependency’ to the tune of Rs.5,18,400/which appears to be more than just and proper.

6. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that there are no grounds to condone the delay. Hence question of con