JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimants. 2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award dated 16.02.2023, passed by the learned District Judge-II-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Deoghar, in Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Case No. 09 of 2020, the appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company submits that there is delay of 337 days in filing the present appeal, for which, I.A. No. 4387 of 2024 has been filed with a prayer to condone the said delay. He submits that the reasons have been assigned in para-5 onwards of the said I.A. He further submits that such condonation may kindly be allowed. 4. The said prayer for condonation of delay has been opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimants on the ground that no cogent reason has been provided in the said paragraphs for condoning the said delay. He submits that only movement of file from one table to another, as a reason has been disclosed for delay in filing the present appeal. 5. So far as merit in the present memo of appeal is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned court has wrongly calculated the monthly income of the deceased to the tune of Rs. 17,500/- per month. He further submits that the deduction towards personal and living expenses was required to be done to the tune of 1/4 th , but the learned court had done to the tune of 1/5 th . He submits that the said award may kindly be modified. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimants submits that the learned court has discussed the evidences and come to the conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs. 600/- to Rs. 700/- per day, as he was the vegetable seller and the learned court has found that he was a skilled worker. He further submits that the learned court in view of the Sarla Verma & Ors. Versus Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 case, has been allowed to deduct 1/5 th towards personal and living expenses and there is no illegality. 7. He further submits that the learned court in view of the Sarla Verma & Ors. Versus Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 case, has been allowed to deduct 1/5 th towards personal and living expenses and there is no illegality. 7. The only point, that has been argued on behalf of the appellant of quantum of monthly income and the deduction to the tune of 1/4 th in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . The learned court has found the deceased as skilled worker, as he was the vegetable seller and he was earning Rs. 600/- to Rs. 700/- per day and has calculated for only 25 days in a month and has come to the conclusion that he was earning Rs. 17,500/- per month. Earning of Rs. 600/- to Rs. 700/- per day for a vegetable seller cannot be said to be the exaggerated one and further the learned court has only counted 25 days in a month to come to such finding , as such, there is no illegality in the said finding. 8. So far as the contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant of deduction of 1/4 th towards personal and living expenses are concerned, that has also been taken care of by the learned court and the learned court in paras-11.2 and 11.3 of the award has considered the case of Sarla Verma’s Case (Supra) and in view of that he has directed to deduct 1/5 th deduction towards personal and living expenses and that has been calculated considering the dependent persons upon the deceased. In view of that, this finding is also not perverse. 9. On the merit itself, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not been able to satisfy the court and further no cogent reason has been provided in the petition filed for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal and only ground is taken that due to movement of file from one table to another the said delay has occurred, however, the same has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mool Chandra Versus Union of India & Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 8435-8436 of 2024 [SLP (Civil) Nos. in Civil Appeal Nos. 8435-8436 of 2024 [SLP (Civil) Nos. 2733-2734 of 2024], wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-20 held as follows:- “20. Be that as it may. On account of liberty having been granted to the appellant to pursue his remedy in accordance with law, yet another O.A. No.2066 of 2020 along with an application for condonation of delay came to be filed. The delay was not condoned by the Tribunal on the ground that it was filed more than one year after the impugned order came to be passed. No litigant stands to benefit in approaching the courts belatedly. It is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of “sufficient cause”, irrespective of the length of delay same deserves to be condoned. However, if the cause shown is insufficient, irrespective of the period of delay, same would not be condoned.” 10. On the merit itself, the appeal fails and further no cogent reason has been provided to condone the delay, as such, this appeal is dismissed. Further the I.A., meant for condonation of delay is also dismissed. 11. The statutory amount deposited by the insurance company shall be transmitted back to the learned tribunal and that amount will be utilized in satisfying the award in favour of the claimants.