Ramnandan Prasad, J.

This appeal has been filed by the opposite parties of claim Case No. 38 of 1977/2 of 1979 under the provisions of Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and award dated 1.7.80 given by Shri Chandra Shekhar Singh, District Judge of Vaishali, acting as Motor Vehicles Accident claim Tribunal. The amount of compensation allowed by the Tribunal is two lacs in all beside costs of Rs. 500 payable by the opposite parties- appellants to the claimants respondents.

2. Respondent no. 2 is the minor son of respondent no.1 who was the husband of the deceased Smt. Uma Singh. Their case was that the deceased, Smt. Uma Singh, who was a lecturer in political Science in Ram Sevak Mahila College, Sitamarhi had come to her father's place at Patna and was returning there on 9.9.1977.

She crossed the Ganges at Patna by Steamer. At Pahlezaghat she boarded a non-stop Rajya Transport Bus bearing no. B.H.F. 388, which was running from Siwan to Sitamarhi, at about 11.30 A.M. After seeing her off there, her husband left for Muzaffarpur by train for some other work. When the bus was about one or two kilo metres away from Goraul its left front tyre burst and the Bus dashed against a Neem tree after Skidding about 22 yards as a result of which the Bus got very badly damaged and its driver and conductor died at their seats. Two children and one lady who were co-passengers of this Bus also died at the spot while many other passengers of the Bus got badly injured. One of the badly injured persons was Smt. Uma Singh. Some local persons including one Deputy Magistrate (A.W. 7), who happened to be there at that time, took her and other injured persons to the Goraul Hospital but she was declared dead there.

3. A fardbeyan about this accident was recorded by the police officer of Guraul police station on the same day at 2.30 hours on the statement of A.W. 9, Dev Narain Mahto, who was also one of the passengers of the ill-fated Bus and sustained injuries in that accident. The police registered a case and, after holding inquest on the dead bodies, got the postmortem examinations conducted and also got the Bus in question examined by the Motor Vehicle Inspector (A.W. 10) on 16.12.1977.

4. The two claimants instituted claim case no. 38 of 1977/2 of 1979 before the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal on 21.7.1977. The total amount claimed by them was Rs.2,51,000/-.

5. It was alleged by the claimants that the deceased was employed as a lecturer in an affiliated college and was initially in the scale of Rs. 400-800 only. Her pay scale was, however, revised to Rs. 700 to 1600 from the date of the concurrence given by the University Service Commisation to her appointment as a temporary lecturer i.e. with effect from 22.5.1976. According to them she was about 30 years old at the time of accident and was expected to serve 30 years more in the college. Indeed her life expectancy was more than that. It was also alleged that the accident took place due to bad maintenance of the Bus in question and also due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Bus. In this connection it was stated that the tyre which got burst was of sub-standard quality and at the relevant time the Bus was being driven recklessly at a very high speed of 70/80 miles per hour.

6. The opposite parties resisted the claim of the claimants by filing a written statement. Their case, inter alia, was that the bus was a new Bus and the tyre in question was also a new one. It was denied that the tyre was of sub standard quality or that the Bus was not properly maintained. It was also denied that the Bus was being driven at a very high speed rather it was being driven at a speed not exceeding 40 K.Ms. per hour. It was asserted that the driver was very competent, sober and careful and he was driving' the Bus very carefully and cautiously. According to them, the accident could not be averted by human being as it was caused by bursting of the left front tyre. The drive