IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.378 of 2010 1. KAPURVA DEVI, Widow of Late Rajendra Prasad. 2. BIRENDRA KUMAR, S/O Late Rajendra Prasad. 3. PRAVESH KUMAR, S/O Late Rajendra Prasad. All R/O Village Simahat, P.O. Amas, P.S. Amas,Distt. Gaya ………….Appellants/Applicants. Versus 1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., through its Divisional Manager, Division Office R.J.Place, Rai Kashi Nath More, Gaya at and P.O. Gaya, Distt. Gaya. 2. BIRENDRA PRASAD, S/O Beni Madho Prasad, R/O Nadraganj, P.S. Civil Lines, Distt. Gaya at present resident of Baipass Road, Aurangabad, P.S. Muffasil Aurangabad, Distt. Aurangabad (owner of the Vehicle) ……... Respondents/Opposite parties. 03. 14.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal which has been preferred ninety days beyond prescribed period of limitation and I.A. No. 4688 of 2010, has been filed seeking condonation of such delay. This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 15th January, 2009 passed by First Additional District Judge-Cum- Claim Tribunal, Gaya, in M.V. Claim Case No. 67/41 of 2008/2006, awarding a sum of Rs. 80, 728/- (eighty thousand seven hundred twenty eight) with interest as compensation for death of one Rajendra Prasad in motor accident. The only ground against the impugned order as taken by learned counsel for the appellant is that, court below has fixed income of the deceased at Rs. 82/- (eighty two), who was admittedly a Masson, whereas it should have been Rs. 150/- (one hundred fifty) per day for which some witnesses have also been examined including the person with whom deceased was working, even on the date of accident. 2 No doubt as it appears from order of the court below that some witnesses were examined but at the same time Government notification, giving details of minimum wages fixed, prevailing on the date of accident was also on record, showing daily income of Masson is Rs. 82/- (eighty two) per day, on basis whereof court below has awarded the compensation to the deceased. I find no illegality or irregularity in the award, moreover, the appeal has been filed after ninety days and no satisfactory explanation has been given for condonation. Considering the facts and circumstance, at the admission stage itself this appeal and I.A. No. 4688 of 2008 are hereby dismissed. Praveen ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)