JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. All these appeals have arisen out of the same accident, nonetheless judgments were rendered separately for awarding the compensation to the injured appellant Saket as well as to the dependents of deceased Nitin and Hari Shankar, so, these are being taken up together for adjudication by this common verdict. 2. The facts of the accident are common. Shorn of unnecessary details, these are being reproduced as under. 3. Injured Master Saket along with the deceased Hari Shankar, Nitin and the claimants Km. Anshu and Smt. Uma (daughter and widow of Mr. Hari Shankar) were travelling by Matiz Car No. UP07-3438 from Doon to Chandigarh on 24.12.2000. The car was being driven by Mr. Hari Shankar. At around 1.30 PM, such car was dashed by Armada Jeep No. PB-11J-1030, which was attempting to overtake the car. As a result of this accident, Mr. Saket became seriously injured inasmuch as his both legs got fractured. Mr. Hari Shankar and Mr. Nitin also got seriously injured and they succumbed to their injuries at some later point of time. 4. Accident and the insurance cover of Armada Jeep have not been denied. So, I would like to take up each case individually for evaluation of the compensation. AO No. 392/2010 5. This appeal has arisen out of the MACP No. 193/2003, which was filed before the Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of rupees fifteen lakhs, but the learned Tribunal has granted Rs. 50,300/- towards the medical bills and Rs. 5,000/- for mental and bodily pain. In all round figure, Rs. 55,000/- was the value of the award. 6. This appeal has been filed with the delay of 41 days. Explanation furnished for such delay is that claim petition was decided on 15.6.2010, counsel before the court below applied for the certified copy of the judgment on 17.6.2010 and the same was supplied on 18.6.2010, but the counsel of Mr. Saket could inform him much later in October 2010. So, he could present the appeal for enhancement with the delay. 7. Saket could inform him much later in October 2010. So, he could present the appeal for enhancement with the delay. 7. Looking to the fact that the appellant had just crossed the age of 20 years at the time of preferring this appeal and he might not have been so vigilant to quickly file the appeal within timeframe as envisaged under the Limitation Act and also on contemplating on the merits of the appeal, I am inclined to condone the delay. Hence, the delay condonation application (CLMA 9138/2010) is hereby allowed. Delay is condoned. 8. On perusing the merits, it transpires that injured Saked remained admitted for a long time in different advanced hospitals. His both thighs got fractured and he underwent multiple operations. So, pondering over on these factors, I think granting only Rs. 5,000/- for the mental and bodily anguish will not be justifiable. Therefore, I enhance this amount to the tune of rupees one lakh along with six per cent simple annual interest w.e.f. the date of filing the claim petition till the realisation. Amount awarded on other scores is not interfered with. 9. Appeal stands partly allowed. Impugned judgment is modified to the extent indicated above. AO No. 306/2010 10. This appeal has been presented by the insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation awarded on account of death of Mr. Nitin, who was a youth of 20 years and he was the son of another deceased Mr. Hari Shankar. Mr. Ninin was pursuing his B. Tech education (final year) in IIT, Guwahati and was engaged through campus selection by some company for a handsome salary of Rs. 12,000/- during the probation period of a forthcoming year after his appointment. Learned Tribunal has taken his monthly lump sum salary as Rs. 6,000/- for evaluating the compensation. As per learned Counsel of the insurance company, it should have been at the notional income. 11. I do not agree with the contention of learned Counsel for the insurance company for the reason that the status of such a charming boy cannot be matched with a simple labourer, all the same he was not employed at the time of accident, but it is difficult to be in oblivion that for such students, the renowned companies always offer the job even before they complete their education. So, looking to all these aspects, the Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. 12. Learned Counsel of the insurance company also argued that in any case, if the deceased had been alive, he would have spent at least one-half towards his personal expenses because he was a bachelor. Learned Counsel of the claimant is not disputing this fifty per cent deduction. Therefore, the monthly income for evaluation of compensation is taken as Rs. 3,000/-, i.e. Rs. 36,000/- per annum. 13. Now coming to the multiplier which has been applied by the Tribunal is 13 because the age of mother (dependent) has been taken into consideration for determining the same. Learned Counsel of the dependents has submitted that age of the deceased would have been taken in this case and after such age is taken into account, then as per Sarla Verma case, the multiplier would be “18.” 14. I have seriously contemplated on this issue and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the general principle of applying the multiplier at the age of dependents would not be made applicable in the present case for the reason that the head of family Mr. Hari Shankar also lost his life in this accident and both the deceased have left behind them not only the old lady (mother of Master Nitin), but also a girl (sister of Master Nintin), who was running in her teens. Both these ladies have lost the growing child of their family and after the death of Hari Shankar, they would have been dependent on him alone, not only on the financial score but on mental and physical level as well. For every agony and woes of the family (if any), this charming boy Master Ninitan was the only ray of hope. 15. Therefore, in these circumstances, I feel that the multiplier of 18 would have been chosen and using such multiplier, the compensation comes to Rs. 6,48,000/-. I modify the award accordingly. The rate of interest and the amount awarded on other scores are not disturbed by this Court. 16. Appeal of the insurance company is disposed of in above terms. AO No. 391/2010 17. This appeal has been filed by Km. Anshu and Smt. Uma (sister and mother of deceased Nitin) for enhancement of compensation with the delay of 41 days. The rate of interest and the amount awarded on other scores are not disturbed by this Court. 16. Appeal of the insurance company is disposed of in above terms. AO No. 391/2010 17. This appeal has been filed by Km. Anshu and Smt. Uma (sister and mother of deceased Nitin) for enhancement of compensation with the delay of 41 days. The ground for delay, as has been highlighted in the enclosed affidavit, is that after receiving the certified copy from the Tribunal, the counsel before the court below informed the appellants quite late in October 2010. 18. I feel that the position and status of Smt. Uma cannot be equated with Master Saket. She was expected to be vigilant and come to the Court well within time. Reasons given for condonation of delay are not satisfactory. Therefore, I reject the delay condonation application (CLMA 9133/2010). Consequently, this appeal also stands dismissed. AO No. 393/2010 19. This appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation granted on death of Hari Shankar. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 14,67,000/- along with interest. There is delay of 41 days in filing this appeal also, wherefor the same reasons (as have been given in AO No. 391/2010) have been furnished. However, ignoring this delay for a moment, I just looked into the impugned judgment and feel that there is no infirmity in awarding the compensation for the death, which occurred in the year 2000. Although the judgment has been pronounced in June 2010, but for that delay, the interest has been awarded. 20. Deceased Hari Shankar is said to be the Bank Manager in Pujab National Bank. After his death, the widow must have got some employment on compassionate ground, besides some other benefits. In Bhakra Beas Management Board v. Kanta Aggarwal & Others, 2008 (3) T.A.C. 661, it was held by the Hon. Supreme Court that the High Court lost sight of the fact that benefits which the claimant receives on account of death or injury have to be duly considered while fixing compensation. 21. So, having considered all these factors, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award. The appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay and also on merits. Delay condonation application (CLMA 9142/2010) stands rejected accordingly. Let the lower court record be sent back.