The quantum of compensation to be awarded in a motor accident case depends on various factors, including the age, education, earning capacity, and loss of expectation of life of the deceased.

( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of two appeals being FAO No. 134/83 (D. T. C. v. Smt. Sudarshan Yadav and others) filed by Delhi Transport Corporation impugning the Award dated March 23,1983 passed by Shri O. P. Dwivedi, Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Delhi. The other appeal being FAO No. 173/83 (Smt Sudershan Yadav and another v. Delhi Transport Corporation and others) is directed against the same Award and has been filed by the Claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

( 2 ) THE respondents/claimants filed their Claim Petition under Section 110-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs 6 lacs on account of death of their only son Ajit Singh in an accident on May 10,1980 The deceased boarded the bus No. DHP 2061 on that day from Inter-State Bus Terminus (I. S. B. T.) at about 3 P. M. It is stated when the deceased Ajit Singh was still on the footboard, the driver of the said bus started the bus suddenly without ensuring that the passengers safely boarded the same.

( 3 ) THE bus was at a fast speed and took a sharp turn as a result of which the deceased was swung out and his head struck against another bus No. DLP 1598. The deceased received serious head injuries as a result of which he died in the hospital. It is further alleged that Mohinder Singh who was the driver of bus No. DLP 1598 did not keep the vehicle in proper manner and was thus negligent. The accident occurred mainly due to rash and negligent act of driving on the part of the driver of bus No. DHP 2061, Narain Singh. The deceased was the only son of the respondents and had passed B. E. (Mech) and was studying in M. B. A. IInd year and after completion of his course, he would have easily got a job for the initial salary of Rs. 2,500. 00 per month. The deceased, it is stated, would have continued to provide financial help to the petitioners, who are his parents, atleast for 30 years. On these pleadings, the respondents- claimants have claimed compensation for the sum of Rs. 6 lacs.

( 4 ) THE appellants in their written statement took the plea that driver of the bus No. DHP 2061 started the bus from I. S. B. T. bus stand when all the passengers had boarded the bus and none was left on the footboard and only after the conductor had given the signal to the driver to move, by blowing whistle. The deceased came running and tried tohoard the moving bus but could not catch hold of the bus-rod on the rear gate, slipped and fell down and struck his head against the hard surface of the road as a result of which the deceased received fatal injuries. It was, accordingly, pleaded that the deceased was himself responsible for bringing the hazard on himself and the appellants were not liable to pay any compensation.

( 5 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether Ajit Singh Yadav received fatal injuries in accident caused on 10. 5. 1980 due to rash/negligent act of driving of bus No. DHP 2061 and bus No. DLP 1598 on the part of respondents 2 and 3? 2. Whether the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased? 3. Whether the accident was caused due to negligence of the deceased? 4. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled and from which of the respondents? 5. Relief.

( 6 ) ISSUES No. 1 and 3 were taken up together. The learned Judge examined the evidence on record, including the evidence of the eye witnesses Tara Singh (P. W 7) and Gopalji Rai (P. W. 11) The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence on record and attendant circumstances, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus No. DHP 2061 on the part of the driver and the deceased received fatal injuries in this accident. These issues were decided accordingly.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Judge has mis-read and mis-appreciated the evidence on record. He has referred me to the evidence o