JUDGMENT

P.K. Lohra, J. - The instant appeal by the insurer is reported to be barred by 58 days.

2. For seeking condonation of delay, appellant has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act duly supported by affidavit of authorized signatory.

3. Subsequently, on behalf of appellant, one additional affidavit is also tendered for explaining delay with clarity and precision. The application for condonation of delay is not contested by respondent-claimants inasmuch as no counter to the same is filed.

4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the application as well as additional affidavit, I feel persuaded to accept the same. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

5. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally at this stage.

6. Appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act') assailing the judgment and award dated 30th of June, 2017, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer (for short, 'learned Tribunal'). The learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and award, while adjudicating the claim of respondent-claimants under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Act, quantified and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,61,352/- under different heads.

7. The facts, in brief, are that respondent-claimants laid a claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Act, inter alia, on the ground that on 17th of February 2016 deceased Kheema Ram was travelling from Daruda to Gudisar on a motorcycle bearing No.RJ-04-GA-9328 as pillion rider and the motorcycle was plied by one Tikma Ram S/o Sida Ram. When the vehicle was proceeding towards Barmer, one Dumper bearing registration No.RJ-04-GA-9329, coming from opposite direction, collided with the same and due to the accident Kheema Ram suffered grave and serious injuries. It is also averred in the claim petition that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of dumper. Kheema Ram, thereafter, was taken to Thar Hospital, Barmer and then referred to Shriram Hospital, Jodhpur, but, during treatment, he succumbed to injuries. The accident was reported to Police Station Kotwali, Barmer and thereupon dumper driver, Babu Lal, was charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and Section 134/187 of the Act. Besides attributing rash and negligent driving to the driver of dumper, the respondent-claimants claimed total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,27,40,000/- under different heads. The claim petition is contested by the driver and owner of dumper as well as insurer-appellant by filing their written statements. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings, settled three issues for determination and rival parties tendered their evidence.

8. After conclusion of evidence, learned Tribunal proceeded to decide the claim petition and at the threshold decided Issue No.1 pertaining to rash and negligent driving in favour of respondent-claimants and against the appellant as well as driver and owner of the vehicle. While examining Issues No.2 & 3, the learned Tribunal has considered various aspects including age of the deceased, his occupation and monthly income and thereafter treating his income as Rs. 5,122/- per mensem, applied multiplier of 16 and quantified the compensation for loss of dependency. While granting compensation for loss of dependency, the learned Tribunal made one-forth deduction for the personal expenses and also allowed 50% future prospects.

9. During the course of arguments, it is submitted in unison by learned counsel for the parties that inspired by the concept of Lok Adalat they have sorted out their dispute and have arrived at a compromise. As per compromise, respondent-claimants have agreed for slashing the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,58,757/-. Thus, the compensation