In cases of contributory negligence, the compensation payable to the victim's family should be apportioned based on the degree of negligence attributable to each party, considering factors such as income, family responsibilities, and the rise in prices.

( 1 ) SARDAR Niranjan Singh was an Assistant Post Master. On February 11, 1963, when he was going on a bicycle on Lady Harding Road at the crossing of Baird Road he was hit by D. T. U. bus No. DLP-906. He became unconscious and died in Willingdon Hospital on February 14, 1963. He was survived by his widow, a son, two minor daughters and one married daughter. They preferred a claim for compensation of Rs. 55,000. 00 under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 to the Accident Claims Tribunal.

( 2 ) IN support of the claim the petitioners examined two eye-witnesses. Arjan Singh (AW-2) was a Constable on duty on the crossing of the Baird Road. Another eye witness was Inderjit Gupta (AW-6 ). The third important witness was Shri Darshan Singh the Police Officer who investigated in the accident and prepared a site plan. The respondent-Corporation denied any liability for the accident. It contended that the deceased was wholly responsible for the accident. The respondents examined Shri Om Pal Singh (R. W-1), a passenger travelling in the said bus. They also examined the bus driver Shri Man-phool Singh and Mehar Singh the conductor. They also examined Sarup Singh (RW-4) the Traffic Superintendent.

( 3 ) THE Accident Tribunal relied more upon the evidence of the respondents and came to the conclusion that the deceased was at fault and he was solely responsible for the accident. The Tribunal, however, worked out some figures of compensation but did not order any compensation to be paid due to its finding on the negligence of the deceased. The claim was, therefore, rejected by the Tribunal on October 1, 1965.

( 4 ) THE heirs of the deceased filed an appeal to this court under section 110-D of the Act. The learned Single Judge who heard the appeal preferred the evidence of the witnesses cited by the claimants. The evidence of Arjan Singh (AW-4), a constable who was on traffic duty at the relevant time showed that, the deceased, before turning to his right side for going towards Bhagat Singh Market, gave a signal. He had turned more than half on the road. The bus was coming at a very high speed. The cycle of the deceased was thrown away at a distance of five to six feet. The bus stopped at a distance of 10 to 15 feet from the place of impact. There was absolutely no traffic on the road. This evidence is supported by another eye witness Inderjit Gupta (AW-6 ). According to the evidence of Sarup Singh (RW-4) Traffic Superintendent, the bus was standing in the middle of the road. The cyclist was on the right side of the bus. The skid marks on the road were 6 feet in length and the deceased was 9 feet from the place from where the skid marks started. The learned Judge, on this evidence came to the following conclusion :

"if the driver had kept a controllable speed on the approach of the crossing and had kept to the left side of the road, the accident might have been avoided. But, the driver, without controlling the speed of the bus appreciably, appears to have moved a little towards the right side of the centre of the road in his attempt to quickly overtake the cycle, hoping that he would be able to move away, leaving the cyclist on his left. The driver, therefore, cannot be totally absolved of his responsibility. The deceased, because of his having taken a rash and reckless act of suddenly turning towards his right oblivious of approaching bus was clearly guilty of contributory negligence. Rather his responsibility for the accident was more than that of the respondent driver. There cannot be any hard and fast rule in apportioning the negligence of the parties. Looking to the circumstances of this case, I think, 2/3rd of the responsibility can be fastened to the deceased himself, while the responsibility of the respondent driver for the accident was to the extent of l/3rd only. "on these findings the learned Judge set aside the order of the Accident Tribunal and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,319. 00 as compensation. He also allowed the