JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Pavithran, learned Counsel for the appellant/applicant, and Mr. A.D. Bhobe with Ms. Kalpa Govekar, learned Counsel for respondent no.1-claimant.

2. Civil Misc. Application No.369 of 2018 seeks a condonation of 246 days in instituting an appeal against judgment and award dated 17.12.2016 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa (Tribunal). Civil Misc. Application (Stamp No.) 1558 of 2019 seeks a stay on executing the impugned award.

3. In the above two Civil Misc. Applications, notices were issued on 02.05.2018. Almost four years were spent serving notices on the respondents, including, more particularly, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle. There is an endorsement in the file that in terms of the order dated 28.08.2019, the driver and the owner were ultimately deleted from the cause title as parties. Meanwhile, execution of the impugned award was stayed subject to deposit of the awarded amount.

4. By order dated 29.04.2019, the claimant Ms. Kimberlyn was permitted to withdraw 50% of the awarded amount. Several adjournments were applied and obtained by and on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company. In paragraph 2 of the appeal memo dated 07.11.2017, there is a statement that the necessary statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/-is made by a demand draft drawn in favor of the Registrar of Bombay High Court, Panaji-Goa. However, in the objections raised on the presentation form on 21.11.2017, there is an endorsement that no deposit was ever made, as mentioned in paragraph 2. There is no record of the clearance of this objection. Besides, there are objections about deficit court fees, no proper synopsis, etc. The Registrar took up the matter on 09.03.2018 and 13.04.2018, but there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant on both dates. All this has contributed to the delay in even taking up the application for condonation of delay in instituting the appeal.

5. All this inactivity is in a matter where Ms. Kimberlyn, all of 18 years, was hit by a rashly driven truck on 17.09.2010. As a result, she struggled for almost three years with the treatment to save her life. She survived with 91.5% certified disabilities, which the medical evidence describes as a vegetable-state. At least in this matter, greater sensitivity was expected and not a delay of 246 days in instituting the appeal followed by four years only to reach this stage seeking condonation. Of course, there is the usual and uninspiring explanation for the delay. But rather than prolong the matter, we all felt that an adjudication on merits at the earliest might promote the already delayed cause.

6. Though the reasons stated for the delay in the institution of this appeal are uninspiring, the delay is condoned because it is not worthwhile to prolong the matter any further on this count. The Insurance Company has simply blamed its advocate for not informing the head office about the impugned award. There is no affidavit of the advocate. There is no material evidencing any follow-up with the advocate. These are not "unavoidable circumstances" as pleaded by the appellant. The learned Counsel for the parties agreed that the delay could be condoned and the matter taken up for final disposal. Accordingly, delay is condoned and Misc. Civil Application No.369/2018 is disposed of.

7. On merits, Mr. Pavithran firstly submitted that the dependency compensation of Rs.16,20,000/-worked out by the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, because the Tribunal added 50% to the notional income of the deceased when in fact, the addition could have been only 40%. He secondly submitted that the award of Rs.3,00,000/-towards future medical expenses is relatively high and must be scaled down appropriately. He thirdly submitted that the award of Rs.3,00,000/-towards attendant fees is not proper because the claimant's mother is already awarded Rs.2,52,600/-for