JUDGMENT : 1. These two appeals against the award dated 22.11.2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Court of Fast Track-III) Dharwad, in M.V.C.No.850 of 2010 have been considered together, and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that Shri Shreedhar Shurpali, the husband of the claimant No.1 and father of the claimants 2 and 3 (who are the appellants in M.F.A.No.21117 of 2013 and are respondents 1 to 3 in M.F.A.No.102252/2014), died due to the injuries sustained in a vehicular accident when the bus bearing registration No.KA-01/D-4081 he was traveling in, rammed into a lorry/truck between Shira – Tumkur near Hegganahalli gate. The claimants, being the wife and children of the deceased, filed the claim application, interalia, with the submissions that the deceased was working as a Manager in the State Bank of India and was 54 years of age; and was drawing salary of Rs.60,418/-per month at the time of his death. The claim for compensation was made as against owner and insurer of the aforesaid bus bearing registration No.KA-01/D-4081. It appears that the owner of the vehicle did not contest the claim application. The Insurer (the appellant in M.F.A.No.102252 of 2014), however, contested the claim application, interalia, with the submissions that the accident took place due to the fault and involvement of the lorry/truck that was parked on the roadside; and, therefore, the driver, owner and insurer of the said lorry/truck were the necessary parties. 3. The Tribunal has noticed that the claimant No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and produced the relevant documentary evidence. On the other hand, the Insurer, though examined cleaner of the bus as RW-1, but the said witness did not turn up for cross-examination and the driver of the bus was also not examined. Thus, while rejecting the suggestion on the part of the Insurer, the Tribunal accepted the case of the claimants that the accident resulting in the demise of the said Shri Shreedhar Shurpali took place for rash and negligent driving of the said bus. 4. Thereafter, the Tribunal took up quantification of compensation and looking to the age of the deceased at 54 years, found it just and proper to apply the multiplier of 11 while bifurcating the same to 6 and 5 with reference to the number of years of service left. 4. Thereafter, the Tribunal took up quantification of compensation and looking to the age of the deceased at 54 years, found it just and proper to apply the multiplier of 11 while bifurcating the same to 6 and 5 with reference to the number of years of service left. The Tribunal proceeded to deduct 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased and, in this manner, assessed the loss of dependency at Rs.46,21,896/-. After awarding further general damages, the Tribunal made the award in the sum of Rs.46,51,896/-in favour of the claimants. 5. The claimants have filed the appeal seeking enhancement over the amount so awarded, essentially with the submissions that the Tribunal has not provided for the element of future prospects as also the loss of amount of gratuity. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has unnecessarily restricted the award of general damages while failing to consider that the minor claimants have lost the love, affection and guardianship of their father at a very early age. It is also submitted that the rate of interest at 6% p.a. is on the lower side. 6. The Insurer, on the other hand, has filed the appeal essentially with the submissions that the Tribunal has erred in deducting 1/4th towards personal expenses of the deceased instead of 1/3rd even though there were only three dependants. 7. The appeal by the Insurer is reportedly time barred by a time of 551 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed in this appeal by the Insurer and the only suggestion available in the affidavit in support of the application towards reasons for the excessive delay is in the following terms: “3. I submit that there is a delay in filing the appeal memo, the delay is due to getting the permission and documents from the corporate office. The delay is neither willful one nor a negligent one. This is a bonafide one. Hence it is submitted to condone the delay in filing the appeal memo.” 8. Obvious it is that the submissions aforesaid are bereft of the relevant particulars and it is difficult to accept the aforesaid as making out sufficient cause for condonation of the excessive delay of 551 days. 9. This is a bonafide one. Hence it is submitted to condone the delay in filing the appeal memo.” 8. Obvious it is that the submissions aforesaid are bereft of the relevant particulars and it is difficult to accept the aforesaid as making out sufficient cause for condonation of the excessive delay of 551 days. 9. Apart from the above, when we examine the matter in its totality, it is made out that even though the Tribunal has proceeded to deduct 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased, when the other elements towards future aspects as also the loss of benefit of gratuity are taken into consideration, in an overall assessment, the award as made by the Tribunal cannot be said to be too excessive or too inadequate so as to call for interference at the instance of either of the parties. 10. In view of the above, both the appeals fail and are, therefore, dismissed. 11. The amount deposited by the Insurer in this Court be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned. It shall be required to the Insurer to deposit the remaining amount of the award in question within 30 days from today with the Tribunal that shall carry out the necessary apportionment and disbursement in accordance with law.