The lump sum awarded as compensation should not carry interest more than the maintenance allowance awarded to the claimants.

S.C.Mittal, J.

1. On 26th January, 1966, in consequence of the accident in question which occurred at 3.30 p.m. on the Mathura Road, Samey Singh lost his life. Car No. DLI 5121 involved in it was driven at the relevant time by Sukhdev Raj Jain. Mrs. Shanti Devi, widow of Samey Singh, Vijay and Muni, his daughters, Hari Pal, Ram Pal and Jagat Pal his sons, and Sukh Rani mother of the deceased, filed application under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation against Sukhdev Raj Jain, M/s Picture Varnishers and Indian Mercantile Insurance Co , Ltd., New Delhi. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, allowed the claim of Rs. 30,000/-. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the Sukhdev Raj Jain and two others mentioned above.

2. It is undisputed fact that the accident did occur on the aforesaid date and time on the Mathura Road and that Samey Singh lost his life in consequence. The version of Shanti Devi and other applicants is that Samey Singh was going from his village on his bicycle to Faridabad. The car driven by Sukhdev Raj Jain came from behind at a fast speed. Horn was not blown. Samey Singh was hit in such a way that from his cycle he got on the bonnet of the car and dashed against the front wind screen which crashed. The injuries sustained by him proved fatal. He died the same day.

3. On the other hand, Sukhdev Raj Jain admitted that he was driving the car in question and stated that Samey Singh contributed to the accident in the following way. Samey Singh was behind a stationary bus. When the bus set in motion, Samey Singh got on his cycle and caught the iron bar on the rear of the bus. For some distance, Samey Singh was pulled by the bug. When it gained speed, Samey Singh lost the grip of the iron bar and also his balance. He went to the extreme of the right side of the road. The car was behind him. Horn was blown, yet Samey Singh did not get away and the accident occurred. M/s. Picture Varnishers, the owners of the car, raised objection that the application against them was barred by time. It was also opposed by the Insurance Company above named. Following issues were framed :

1. Whether the alleged accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of the driver Sukhdev Raj, respondent No. 1, as claimed and whether Samey Singh died on account of the injuries received by him in that accident ?

2. Whether the accident in question took place on account of the negligence of the deceased and what is its effect ?

3. Whether the applicants are the persons entitled to the compensation and what compensation, if any, is due and to whom and from whom ?

4. Whether the claim is within time against M/s picture Varnishers ?

5. Relief.

Issues 1 to 4 were decided in favour of the applicants and they were awarded Rs. 30,000/- as compensation.

4. The applicants examined Tej Ram (P.W. 1) Sukh Ram (P.W. 2) and Sarni Mal (P.W. 3) in support of their version. Tej Ram testified that at the relevent time he was also riding on his cycle towards Faridabad. Samey Singh was ahead of him at some distance. The car in question came at a fast speed. The driver did not blow the horn and struck against Samey Singh who fell on the bonnet and dashed against the wind screen of the car which crashed. The driver stopped the car at a distance of about 25 yards. Samey Singh was taken by the same car to the hospital. Sukh Ram (P.W. ?) made a similar deposition. P.W. 3 is Sarni Mal, on octroi Moharrir, who saw the accident from a distance of 200 paces. His version to is in accord with that of the other two witnesses. A very striking feature of their evidence is that none of them is either interested in the deceased or in any way inimical towards the driver of the car. As regards the counter-version, in the first place it is given by Sukhdev Raj (R.W. 1), the driver, who is interested in saving his skin. Satinder Kumar (R.W. 3) and Brij Lal (R.W. 4) who were travelling with him in the car are admittedly his friend