In assessing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the court should consider the deceased's income, age, and marital status, as well as the claimant's age, health, and dependency on the deceased.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises from an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Delhi, dated 29th April, 1964. The short facts necessary for this parpose are that a son of the appellant herein, one Jagdish Kumar, was standing behind truck No. PNG 1861 in Naya Bazar near Suri Goods Transport Company, Delhi, on 22th July, 1960 at 7-5u P. M. when truck No. DLG 3749 driven by respondent No. 1 in the course of his employment with respondent No. 2, the owner of the truck, while reversing, dashed into truck No. PNG 1861 and crushed Jagdish Kumar who was standing behind it. Jagdish Kumar sustained injuries and succumbed to them in lrwin Hospital where he was taken. The present appellant filed a claim for compensation of Rs. 50,000. 00 from the respondents alleging that the accident resulting into the death of Jagdish Kumar was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, who, while reversing his truck, did not take care to see that the road on the back was clear. Respondent No. 3 in the application was the insurer of the truck concerned.

( 2 ) THE claim of the appellant was resisted by the respondents on serveral grounds - On the basis of those objections, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed the following six issues :-

1. Whether there is sufficient cause tor condonation of delay in filing the claim ? 2 Whether the applicant is the legal representative of Jagdish Kumar ? 3. Whether the accident, where in Jagdish Kumar had died, was the result of negligent driving of the truck by Dev Raj ? 4. Whether Jagdish Kumar was travelling in the truck at the time of the accident ? If so, what is its effect ? 5. To what amount of compensation the applicant is entitled and from whom ? 6. Relief.

( 3 ) ISSUE No. 1 was decided by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant herein by a separate order dated 27th July, 1and63. The Tribunal decided issue No. 2 in favour of the present appellant herein. On issue No. 3 the Tribunal held that the accident resulting into the death of the deceased was caused due to negligent driving of Dev Raj respondent who did not have the proper look out on the road while reversing his truck without the aid of any person giving him signal to move on, Issue No. 4 was decided against the respondents on the ground that there was no evidence led on that issue. Under issue No. 5, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1950. 00 with costs to the appellant herein. It is against this quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal that the present appellant has preferred this appeal to this Court.

( 4 ) BEFORE proceeding with the matter, I must point out one circumstance. The case was on my list and, was taken up on 12th May 1967 the forenoon when the appellant s counsel was present and the counsel for the respondents was not present. I waited for some time and even then nobody on behalf of the respondents appeared before me and made any representation. I heard the counsel for the appellant and after he concluded his arguments I, adjourned the case awaiting the appearance of the respondents in the afternoon. Even then none appeared on behalf of the respondents. Then I directed the case to be included in the list for today marking it part heard, Even today till 10-45 A. M. nobody on behalf of the respondents has appeared before me. Under these circumstances, I have no alternative but to decide the matter on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and on going through the record available before me.

( 5 ) THE basis on which the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 1950 is as follows: The Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 30 years and his annual income as Rs. 6,250.) according to the income-tax assessment order: The Tribunal considered that the deceased must have left considerable assets, the extent of which was not known on the records, and in the absence of the evidence of the appellant inheriting any assets of the deceased by the death, no deductions could b