JUDGMENT Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. This appeal though listed for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, is finally heard and disposed of by this judgment. 2. I.A.No.1/2012 is filed to condone the delay of 840 days in preferring the appeal calling in question the judgment and award dated 03.02.2010 in MVC No.175/2008 of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Additional MACT, Basavakalyana. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it is stated that the appellant's advocate Sri Prabhakar D. Garje when entrusted to appear in MVC No.175/2008, did not furnish certified copies of the judgment and award impugned, for a period of two years and four months after 03.02.2010, hence, the delay. In addition, it is stated that a fraud was unearthed in the matter of collusion between the claimants, driver and owner of the offending motor vehicle insured by the appellant. 3. Sri Prabhakar D. Garje, Advocate, when called upon to file his explanation over the allegation against him in the affidavit, submitted a memorandum of facts which when considered today, the following order is passed: Sri Prabhakar D. Garje, Advocate, who represented the insurance company before the MACT, files memorandum of facts furnishing the explanation for delay in obtaining (on 22.05.2012) the certified copy of the judgment and award dated 03.02.2010 in MVC No.175/2008. The reason is that he was suffering from hypertension and diabetes ever since 22.02.2010 and was under treatment. 4. Though the inordinate delay is not explained by furnishing material particulars and dates, nevertheless, that cannot be a cause for the inertia exhibited by the insurance company. Merely because a Lawyer engaged by the insurance company did not furnish the certified copy of the judgment and award, it cannot be a straight jacket formula to accept that the insurance company -party was not aware of the judgment and award. It was incumbent on the part of the insurance company officers to ensure follow up over the progress of the MVC case. 5. We are inclined to accept the reason attributed by the advocate for not having informed the insurance company -party. To that extent we find justification on the part of the advocate. The memorandum of facts is taken on record and the presence of the advocate is dispensed with. 6. 5. We are inclined to accept the reason attributed by the advocate for not having informed the insurance company -party. To that extent we find justification on the part of the advocate. The memorandum of facts is taken on record and the presence of the advocate is dispensed with. 6. In the light of the fact that it was for the appellant -insurance company to have been diligent in prosecuting its case before the MACT and there being not a whisper over why due diligence was not shown, and having regard to the observations of the Apex Court in paragraph - 21 of the decision in MANIBEN DEVRAJ SHAH vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF BRIHAN MUMBAI1, and applying the same to the contents of the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.1/2012, it can hardly be 1 AIR 2012 SC 1629 said to constitute sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 840 days in preferring the appeal. 5. Having examined the judgment and award impugned, the MACT adopted a perverse procedure in reckoning Rs.7,662/- as the monthly income of the deceased - Vishal, a Police Constable in the State Constabulary, which amount was doubled over to arrive at Rs.14,484/- and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the monthly income from salary was arrived at Rs.9,656/-, to which was added 1/3rd of Rs.1,692/- i.e., Rs.1,128/-being life pension awarded to the deceased while serving the defence as certified in Ex.P8 and that Rs.10,784/- was the monthly loss of dependency, while the annual loss of dependency was Rs.1,29,408/-to which was applied multiplier 14, the age of the mother, the younger of the parents to award Rs.18,11,712/- towards loss of dependency. To this was added Rs.30,000/-under the conventional heads and the total compensation awarded was Rs.18,41,712/-with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 7. Regard being had to the decision in SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER2, it is needless to state that the deceased earned Rs.7,662/- as monthly salary while serving the State of Karnataka as a Police Constable as on 31.05.2008, the date of accident and death. The deceased was also paid Rs.1,692/- towards life pension from the defence establishment on his retirement. Thus the total income of the deceased was Rs.9,354/-per month. The deceased was also paid Rs.1,692/- towards life pension from the defence establishment on his retirement. Thus the total income of the deceased was Rs.9,354/-per month. Keeping in mind the age of the deceased i.e., 23 years, and future prospects of life, and reckoning 50% of the said sum an addition to the monthly income, the total monthly income is Rs.14,031/- (9,354+4,677=14,031). The deceased was a Bachelor and deducting 50% of the said sum towards his personal expenses, Rs.7,015.5/-is the monthly loss of dependency while the annual loss of dependency is Rs.84,186/-and applying multiplier 18, as applicable to the age of the deceased, the total loss of dependency is Rs.15,15,348/- and adding Rs.30,000/-awarded by the MACT under conventional heads, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,45,348/-as against Rs.18,41,712/- awarded by the MACT. 8. Although Sri Sanjay M. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant makes a faint effort to submit that a fraud was played by the driver and the owner of the vehicle insured by the appellant, in collusion with the claimants, we are not convinced with that argument. We say so, because though the very contention was advanced before the MACT in the statement of objections, nevertheless, was not pursued by the appellant. The appellant placed no material whatsoever to establish the alleged fraud or collusion. The 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 submission of the learned counsel that there are some flaws in the statement of the second claimant examined as PW.1 and that of the eyewitness-PW.3, by itself and nothing more cannot establish a fraud or collusion between the said parties. It is no doubt true that PW.3 -the eyewitness, an inmate of the offending jeep, admitted in cross-examination that he did not inform the claimants about the accident, that by itself, cannot be a circumstance to establish a fraud between the owner and driver and the claimants. 9. The further submission of the learned counsel that Rural Police of Lathur registered an unnatural death case No.0/2008 and in the absence of assigning a number, establishes registration of a false case, is also unacceptable. It may be that Lathur Police did register a case of unnatural death as No.0/2008, hence, it was for the appellant to have summoned the records to prove that such a registration supported the defence put forth by the appellant. It may be that Lathur Police did register a case of unnatural death as No.0/2008, hence, it was for the appellant to have summoned the records to prove that such a registration supported the defence put forth by the appellant. Nothing appreciable is done in that regard and therefore, merely because, Lathur Police registered a case of unnatural death as 0/2008, it cannot be said proved the allegation of collusion of the insured his driver and the claimants. We are fully convinced that the testimony of PW.3 an eye-witness and inmate of the jeep that dashed against the deceased who was riding the motorcycle, is credible evidence to establish the accident that occurred on 31.05.2008 involving the motorcycle and the jeep. In fact, the cross-examination of PW.3 does not disclose incriminating statement having been elicited by which his testimony could be discarded. 10. Looking at it from any angle the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant over fraud having been played, deserves to be rejected. 11. In the result, I.A.No.1/2012 is allowed, delay is condoned and the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award impugned is modified entitling respondents 1 to 3 to Rs.15,45,348/- as compensation in place of Rs.18,41,712/-, and in all other respects remains unaltered.