RAFIQ, J.—Appeal is time barred by 119 days. For stated reasons, delay is condoned. Application for condonation of delay stands disposed of. 2. Matter is considered on merits. 3. Appeal has been filed by non-claimant assailing award dated 10.08.2000 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in MAC Case No.100/1994, whereby learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,35,420/- to claimants in a death claim on account of death of Radhey Shyam. Ground raised in appeal is that scooter was in ownership and possession of non-claimant no.1 and not with appellant and therefore it could not be held liable for payment of compensation. Even if, vehicle was sold on higher purchase agreement basis, it was incumbent upon hirer to get it insured and if vehicle was not insured, appellant, who advanced loan, cannot be held to be owner for payment of compensation. 4. Perusal of impugned award indicates that deceased was 47 years of age. Appellant failed to adduce evidence before learned Tribunal as well as to raise arguments that appellant sought to make before this court now, despite service of notice and therefore matter was decided ex-parte by learned Tribunal. Deceased was 47 years of age and learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 13. Income of deceased was accepted to be Rs.2000/- per month and 2.5 units have been deducted out of that. Thus, a sum of Rs.555/- was deducted and Rs.1445/- were held to be contribution to family and learned Tribunal computed compensation of Rs.2,25,420/- for loss of dependency. Learned Tribunal also awarded Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate etc. Thus, a total compensation of Rs.2,35,420/- has been awarded by learned Tribunal in favour of claimants. Since the appeal was time barred and, therefore, notices were issued of application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and there was no interim order passed by this court staying operation of impugned award. Even otherwise, matter was proceeded ex-parte before learned Tribunal against appellant despite service of notice. Appellant did not care to contest the matter. After such a length of time, appellant has for the first time raised the arguments before this court. Even if, scooter was sold on higher purchase basis, registration certificate of vehicle was still in name of appellant and if vehicle was not insured, it cannot escape of its liability for making payment of compensation. After such a length of time, appellant has for the first time raised the arguments before this court. Even if, scooter was sold on higher purchase basis, registration certificate of vehicle was still in name of appellant and if vehicle was not insured, it cannot escape of its liability for making payment of compensation. Number of dependents were five and, therefore, as per ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another – (2009) 6 SCC 121 = 2009(1) CCR 276 (SC) = 2009(4) RLW 2785 (SC), deduction of 1/4th was to be made, which is approximately the same amount which has been deducted by learned Tribunal for self-expenses of deceased. Compensation awarded by learned Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable. Even otherwise, I do not deem it appropriate to interfere with impugned award. 5. Appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. Consequent upon dismissal of appeal itself, stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and same is also dismissed.