JUDGMENT 1. - The appellants have filed thus appeal against the Award of Rs. 32,5000/- to the claimants who are the relatives of Jannat and Rehana. Both of whom died in the accident which took place on 26.8.78 at about 10.45 on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. RRM No. 6745 which was driven by Nawab Ali. The accident took place outside Emergency gate of SMG hospital, Jaipur, when vehicle Station Wagon -RR-M 6740 belonging to the police department came with a fast speed without giving horn and struck the cycle riksha on account of which riksha was smashed and Rehana and Jannat fell down and died. 2. The cross-objection has been filed by the respondents-claimant on 17th September, 1981 after the receipt of the notice of the appeal in the month of 24th April, 1982.Shri. S.B. Mathur, appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that the amount awarded is excessive inasmuch as the expectancy of income of Rs. 150/- per month from the deceased is not proved. Jannat was the mother of the claimant Iqbal and Rehana was wife of Iqbal. The Tribunal, on the discussion of the evidence of Ismail (AW1), and Babukhan ; (AW3), has held that the allegation that Jannat used to earn about. Rs. 2/- per day, is not belieable as Jannat was 60-65 years.So tar as Rehana is concerned, the Tribunal has held that it has been proved that she used to earn Rs. 210/- per month and the claimants used to get benefit of Rs. 100 per month from Rehana. The Tribunal then held that for 35 years this amount of Rs. 100/- would have been expected to be benefitted to the claimants and this amount was assessed to Rs. 42,000/-. The Tribunal deducted 40% of this amount and then allowed Rs. 26,900/- as compensation on this head. I am of the opinion that this cannot be called excessive.No other point was argued by Shri. Mathur and rightly so because the amount of compensation allowed is to meagre. 3. So far as the cross-objection is concerned, it is hopelessly barred by time as it has been filed after delay of 2 years and 5 months. The learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No. 1 and 2 submitted that, although there is delay but there are minor claimants, therefore, the delay must be condoned. 3. So far as the cross-objection is concerned, it is hopelessly barred by time as it has been filed after delay of 2 years and 5 months. The learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No. 1 and 2 submitted that, although there is delay but there are minor claimants, therefore, the delay must be condoned. I find that in the appeal Iqbal is major and Anwar is represented by guardian and, both are represented by the counsel in this appeal, from the very beginning and, therefore, there is no reason to condone the delay of more than 2 years. 4. The learned counsel then submitted that the Court should exercise the powers under G. 41 R. 33, CPC in the interest of justice. I am unable to accept this contention, also because no such extra ordinary situation has been shown to the jurisdiction invoke under O. 41 R. 33 CPC. It must be mentioned that O. 41 R. 33 CPC cannot be treated as "Allaudin's lamps" when under the law party fails to file appeal or file cross objection within time and further fails to give any sufficient cause for abnormal delay of 2 years and 5 months. It would be misuse and abuse of provisions of O. 41 R. 33 CPC if it is frequently invoked. 5. The cross-objection, is therefore, dismissed alongwith the appeal. The appellants would pay the amount of compensation if it has not been paid so far within two months from today failing which they would further be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% instead of 6% interest as awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of application till the date of realisation.In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. The respondents would get costs of Rs. 500/- from the appellants. With the above observation. The impugned Award is confirmed.Appeal dismissed. *******