Order Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment. They were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Mr. A.K. Lal, learned counsel, appearing for the claimants, submitted that the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the expected increase in the salary of the deceased, and therefore the amount claimed i.e. Rs. 10 Lacs should have been allowed instead of Rs. 6,13,500.00. 3. On the other hand Mr. Akhtar, appearing for the State submitted that the future is uncertain and therefore the claimant cannot raise claim based on future enhancement in salary. He further submitted that the evidence with regard to the quantum of salary should not have been accepted by the Tribunal only on the basis of a certificate of In-charge Principal. He also submitted that the deceased was also negligent as he was walking on foot on the right side. Therefore he submitted that the award be set aside. 4. Regarding the claim of enhancement of awarded amount, Mr. Akhtar rightly submitted that the future is uncertain. The judgment of Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 cited by Mr. Lal is of no help to him as the facts and circumstances of the said case are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the present case. The deceased in the said case was aged about 39 years wherein in the present case, the deceased was aged about 52 years. Moreover, it was observed in the said case itself that several factors are to be taken into consideration for ascertaining the quantum. 5. Regarding the appeal filed by the State it appears that the State had cross-examined the witnesses produced by the claimants. It did not produce any evidence in rebuttal. Thus it cannot be said that the Tribunal should not have accepted the evidence of the claimants. Regarding negligence of the deceased, it cannot be accepted that he was negligent only because he was walking on the right side. 6. It may also be noted that MA No. 38 of 2007 was filed by the State after a delay of about 1107 days. A Limitation Petition (I.A. No. 1770 of 2007) has been filed on the ground that from the date of knowledge the appeal was filed within one month. The explanation of delay is wholly unsatisfactory. 6. It may also be noted that MA No. 38 of 2007 was filed by the State after a delay of about 1107 days. A Limitation Petition (I.A. No. 1770 of 2007) has been filed on the ground that from the date of knowledge the appeal was filed within one month. The explanation of delay is wholly unsatisfactory. The State participated in the hearing before the lower cannot be accepted that it had no knowledge of the judgment and only when the notice of M.A. No. 404 of 2003 was served on the State, it learnt' about the judgment. 7. Taking into consideration the entire matter in totality, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. We direct the State-respondents to pay the amount as per the Award, except the statutory amount paid to the claimants, within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the State will also be liable to pay interest on the said amount @ 9% per annum, till the payment, and the enhanced amount of interest may be recoverable from the erring officer(s). With these observations and directions, both these appeals and I.A. No. 1770 of 2007 are dismissed. However, no costs.