In cases of contributory negligence, the liability for an accident can be apportioned between the parties based on their respective degrees of negligence.

( 1 ) THIS first appeal, under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is directed against the award dated October 1, 1965 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Delhi, dismissing the appellant s application under section 110-A of the Motor vehicles Act, for awarding a sum of Rs. 55,090. 00 as compensation on account of death of Sardar Niranjan Singh, husband of appellant No. 1, and father of appellants Nos. 2 to 5. The accident took place on February 11, 1963 at about 12. 30 p. m. , when according to the allegations in the application, the deceased was proceeding from Gole Market side towards Baird Road on his cycle. A D. T. U. bus, registered No. DLP 906, driven by Manphool Singh, respondent No. 1 and belonging to D. T. C. and the Delhi Municipal Corporation, respondents, Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, approached from behind and struck against the right hand side of his cycle from the rear. It is alleged that the bus was driven at a very fast speed rashly and in a negligent manner and could not be controlled. It was pleaded that the deceased was dragged towards the middle of the road and was finally knocked down mid way on the left half of the road side, resulting in serious injuries to him. The deceased became unconscious and was removed to the Willingdon Hospital, where he died on February 14, 1963. The deceased was said to be 54 years of age and was working as Assistant Postmaster, drawing a salary of Rs. 321. 60 per month. He was expected, according to the appellants, to live up to the age of 80 years, had he not met with the accident.

( 2 ) THE respondent in reply pleaded that the bus was proceeding on its correct side on Lady Hardinge Road at a moderate speed and it had slowed down when it reached near the crossing of Baird Road. The deceased going on a cycle was said to be on the left side of the bus on seeing which he tried to cross the road ahead of the bus from the left to the right side of the road in order to go to Bhagat Singh Market. In this attempt he struck against the left side of the bus and fell down receiving serious injuries as a result of the fall. The other allegations were denied. Seven issues were framed, but arguments in this court were confined to issues Nos. 2, 4 and 6 only, which read as follows : " (2) Whether the accident resulting into death of Niranjan Singh was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 1 (4) Whether the deceased was guilty of of contributory negligence ? (6) To what amount if any as compensation are the petitioners entitled ?

( 3 ) THE motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased himself was solely responsible for his own death and that the appellants had failed to prove any rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver, respondent No. 1. The Tribunal also worked out a sum of Rs. 12,210. 00, which would have been payable to the appellants. Out of this, a sum of Rs. 7591. 75 was deducted on account of death-cum-retirement gratuity and provident fund already paid to the appellants, thereby leaving a balance of Rs. 5619. 00 which might have been awarded to the appellants, if the decision on issues Nos. 2 and 4 had been in their favour. But, as the responsibility of the respondent-driver had been negatived, the application under section 110a of the Act for compensation was dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

( 4 ) THE main question, which has arisen in this appeal and on which the learned counsel for the parties, laid great stress during their arguments before me, is whether the driver of the offending bus had any responsibility in causing the accident or whether it was the result solely of the negligence and rashness of the deceased himself. The parties produced number of witnesses on both sides. To me, however, it appears that the statements of the two eye witnesses, viz. Arjan Singh, AW4, and Inderjit Gupta, AW6, and that of Darshan Singh AW 10, who prepared the site plan, exhibit AW10/