1. While assessing the annual dependency, pension, provident fund, and gratuity cannot be taken into consideration. 2. Interest on the compensation awarded under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, should be awarded at the rate of 12% from the date of application till the date of payment.

M.S.Liberhan, J.

1. This is an appeal arising out of an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, passed in Claim Petition Nos. 58 and 59 of 1981.

2. In Claim Petition No. 58 of 1981, Mehar Devi, widow, along with her minor daughters and sons, and Krishni Devi, claimed compensation on account of the death of Havildar Nathu Ram Sharma, the deceased husband of Mehar Devi and father of the minor claimants and son of Krishni Devi. In Claim Petition No. 59 of 1981, only Mehar Devi claimed compensation as the mother of Bhupinder Sharma deceased. Common questions of law and fact arose in both the petitions, hence the Tribunal recorded evidence in Claim Petition No. 58 and disposed of both the petitions vide the impugned order dated 1.10.1982. However, the State has preferred the present appeal only against the award arising out of Claim Petition No. 58 of 1981.

3. The claimants averred that the deceased Havildar Nathu Ram Sharma, aged 52V2 years and his son Bhupinder Sharma, aged 11 years, were standing at the "Request Bus Stop" on Chandigarh-Ambala Road, opposite the Air Port Chowk, on the berm of the road waiting for the bus. Bus bearing registration No. PUR 6857, driven by Narinder Singh respondent, came at a high speed from Chandigarh side. The driver suddenly swerved the bus to the extreme left and hit the deceased who were standing on the extreme left of the road on the berm. Nathu Ram Sharma deceased was dragged to a distance of about 25 ft. when the bus struck a telephone pole and fell down on its right side in a deep pit. Bhupinder Sharma also got injured and died later in the hospital. It was stated that Nathu Ram Sharma deceased was in the Army service and was drawing Rs. 893.52 as monthly salary at the time of his death. Thus, a claim of Rs. 2,50,000/- by way of compensation was made. In the connected Claim Petition No. 59 Mehar Devi claimed Rs. 50,000/- as damages for the loss of her son.

4. The accident, its place and date were admitted. It was stated by the respondents that deceased Nathu Ram Sharma and his son Bhupinder Sharma were standing at the "Request Bus Stop" on Chandigarh-Ambala Road opposite the Air Port Chowk, near the telephone pole exactly at the berm of the road. The bus was being driven at a low speed of 30 km. per hour and when it reached near the crossing, suddenly a truck appeared from the Air Port side and entered the crossing. The driver in order to avoid a direct collision between the truck and the bus, swerved his bus towards the extreme left. Resultantly, the bus climbed the road-berm and injured both the deceased. All other allegations of fact were controverted.

5. The learned Tribunal, after discussing the oral statements of A.S.I. Same Singh, PW 1, S.I. Jasbir Singh, PW 2, Havildar Clerk Buta Ram, PW 3, Dr. Ashok Gupta, PW 4, Havildar Sham Lai, PW 6, Bhagat Ram, PW 7 and Mehar Devi claimant herself as PW 5, and further taking into consideration the statement of Narinder Singh, driver, respondent No. 2, and going through the photographs P-l, P-3 to P-8 and P-10, came to the conclusion that:

The rashness and negligence on the part of respondent No. 2 is apparent from the fact that he has tailed to prove that he had turned the bus to left in order to allegedly avert the accident with the military truck, which according to him (driver) was coming from the Air Port side.

It was further found that the driver "had no reason to take the bus to the extreme left beyond the left berm of the road" and further after relying upon the evidence and taking into consideration the other circumstances, concluded that the bus driver was negligent and rash in driving the bus and caused the deaths of the deceased.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that rash and negligent driving is not proved. He has taken me through the statements of the witnesses as well as the photographs. I find no reason to differ with the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal with respect to the negligent d