In determining the quantum of compensation for accident victims, courts must consider various factors, including the deceased's income, personal expenses, probable expenditure on dependents, and the fact that compensation is paid in a lump sum.

1. These two appeals are directed against an award of a claims tribunal constituted under section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The accident for which compensation has been awarded was by bus No. BRR 800. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 203 of 1968 is by the insurer and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 215 of 1968 is by the owner of the bus. They have been heard together, as they arise out of the same order, and are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. On 4th July, 1962, at about 10.30 a.m., Parbati Kumar Banerjee, a school teacher of the Jharia Raj School at Jharia, and his mother (A.W. 3) were standing at the place used as bus-stand near Dhanbad Railway Station. According to the claimant, the father of Parbati Kumar Banerjee, the aforesaid bus came there at high speed and crushed Parbati Kumar Banerjee in between that bus and another bus which was standing at the bus-stand, from before. A. W. 3 also received injuries. Parbati Kumar Banerjee was taken to the hospital at Dhanbad, but he died there. As stated earlier, the claim application was made by the father (A.W. 8) which is for his benefit as (well as for that of the mother of the deceased (A.W. 3).

3. The case of the appellants was that there was no negligence on the part of the driver. A.W. 3 was there from before when the bus came at that place and she received minor injuries. The deceased, Parbati Kumar Banerjee, suddenly rushed to help her and in that process received the injury.

4. The claims tribunal has held that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, and, as such, the owner and insurer are liable to pay compensation. It has fixed the compensation at Rs. 24,000 out of which Rs. 20,000 is to be paid by the insurer and Rs. 4,000 by the owner.

5. Mr. S.K. Sarkar, appearing in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 203 of 1968, and Mr. Saptami Jha in the other appeal for the appellants have contended that the finding of the claims tribunal that there was negligence on the part of the driver is not correct. On the materials on the record, however, we are satisfied that the finding is correct. No witness was examined on their behalf to prove that the deceased suddenly came near the bus after his mother received injuries and in that process he himself was injured ; rather this suggestion was put to A.W. 3 and she expressly denied it. The station diary lodged by the driver was marked exhibit 1 in the case, and that no doubt supported the case of the appellants, but as the driver has not been examined in the case by either, his statement in that entry cannot be taken into evidence. The driver was interested in making such a statement, and we are not satisfied that whatever he stated in the sanha entry was true. We accordingly hold, in agreement with the claims tribunal, that there was negligence on the part of the driver and the appellants are liable to pay the compensation for the accident.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants have next challenged the the quantum of compensation fixed by the claims tribunal. Evidence was led on behalf of the claimants that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs. 114 from the school as a teacher. The evidence, however, showed that he was actually drawing Rs. 99 per month, and he was entitled to draw a further sum of Rs. 15. The claims tribunal has, therefore, fixed the amount which the deceased was getting per month from the school for his work as teacher at Rs. 99 per month, and that finding has not been challenged before us by the learned counsel for either party. Evidence was also led before the claims tribunal on behalf of the claimant that the deceased used to earn Rs. 300 per month from private tuition. Three students were examined as A. Ws. 5, 6 and 7, and in their evidence they haVe said that the deceased was their private tutor. They used to read in batches of ten. The students of one batch used to pay Rs. 20 each per month, whereas the students of the other batch used to pay Rs. 15 each per month. The claims tribunal ha