Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application u/s.5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. 3. Shri Sandeep Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is certain possibility of enhancement of compensation amount in the present case because nothing has been awarded for pain and sufferings and separately for shortening of one leg. 4. In the present matter, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation on the basis of extent of disability of the appellant assessed by the medical authority who found him to be permanent disabled to the extent of 15%. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the income of the injured has been accepted at a lower level, whereas the finding on issue No.3 suggests that though appellant accepted that he was working on part time basis with BSNL, but no proof of the fact was produced by any document that he was earning a sum of Rs.6,000 per month. The fact about the permanent disability has not been denied. 6. In the absence of any definite proof of income, the Tribunal has taken the income at Rs.3,000 per month and on that basis proceeded to compute the compensation by applying the structured formula at the multiplier of 13 in view of the age of the deceased to be between 45-50 years. On the head of medical expenses, Rs.35,023/- has been awarded. Rs.1100 has been awarded as cost of litigation, Rs.4,500 has been awarded for hospitalisation of 15 days and Rs.5,000 each has been awarded for each grievous injury. There may be a possibility of marginal increase in the amount of compensation but in the light of finding recorded by the Tribunal, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. The appeal is therefore dismissed.