M. R. A. Ansari, J. ( 1 ) SHANTI Devi Dutt and Pratibha Dutt, appellants in F. A. 0 s No. 95 of 1968, filed two separate applications before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) under section 110a of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (herein after referred to as the Act ). According to the averments in these applications these two appellants and Kundan Lal, the husband of Shanti Devi Dutt and father of Pratibha Dutt, were waiting at the Delhi Gate Bus Stand on 4. 10. 1964 at about 4. 40 p m. for catching a bus in order to go to the Friends Colony. While they were waiting a bus bearing registration No. DLP 182, owned by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, arrived at the bus stand and all the three of them boarded the bus. But even before they could settle themselves in the bus and even while Kundan Lal was on the top step and the other two were on the platform of the bus, the conductor of the bus pulled the bell thereby signalling to the driver of the bus to proceed and immediately the driver started the bus with a jerk as a result of which all the three of them fell down on the road. As they fell down, another bus bearing registration No. DLP 344, also belonging to the Corporation, came behind the bus DLP 182 at a high speed and ran over Shanti Devi and Kundan Lal. While Shanti Devi escaped with some injuries, Kundan Lal s head and chest were crushed and he died on the spot. Both the buses were stopped and information was conveyed to the police. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to rashness and negligence on the part of the conductor and driver of bus No. DLP 182 as well as the driver of bus No. DLP 344. A sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 was claimed by Shanti Devi in the application filed by her by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by her and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 was claimed by Shanti Devi and Pratibha Dutt in the other application jointly filed by them by way of compensation for the financial loss sustained by them on account of the death of Kundan Lal. 1,00,000. 00 was claimed by Shanti Devi and Pratibha Dutt in the other application jointly filed by them by way of compensation for the financial loss sustained by them on account of the death of Kundan Lal. These claims were made against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Delhi Transport Undertaking the owners of the two buses, and against the driver and conductor of bus No. DLP 182 and the driver of bus No. DLP 344, hereinafter referred to as the respondents. ( 2 ) THESE petitions were opposed by the respondents on various grounds, the main ground being that the accident was not the result of any rashness or negligence on the part of the driver and conductor of bus No. DLP 182 or of the driver of bus No. DLP 344. According to them, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the appellants themselves. Their version of the accident was that Shanti Devi and Kundan Lal boarded the bus DLP 182, but before Partibha Dutt could board the bus, it had started and when Shanti Devi and Kundan Lal found that Pratibha Dutt was left behind, they both jumped down from the running bus and sustained injuries by falling down on the road. It was, therefore, contended that the respondents were not liable to pay any compensation either in respect of the injuries sustained by Shanti Devi or in respect of the death of Kundan Lal. It was contended in the alternative that the compensation claimed by the appellants was excessive. ( 3 ) IN the petition filed by Shant Devi, which is petition No. 256/64, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the accident resulting into injuries to the petitioner was due to rash and negligent driving or act on the part of respondents Nos. 3 to 5 or any one of them ? 2. Whether the petitioner was guilty of contributory negligence, if so, its effect ? 3. To what amount, if any, are the petitioners entitled. 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable without notice under section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act ? 5. Relief. In the petition jointly filed by Shanti Devi and Pratibha Dutt which is petition No. 257/74, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the application is not maintainbale without notice under section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act ? 5. Relief. In the petition jointly filed by Shanti Devi and Pratibha Dutt which is petition No. 257/74, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the application is not maintainbale without notice under section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act ? 2. Whether the petitioners are legal Representatives of Mr. Kundan Lal deceased and are entitled to claim compensation ? 3. Whether the accident resulting into death of Mr. Kundan Lal deceased was due to rash and negligent driving or act on the part of respondents Nos. 3,4 and 5 or any one of them? 4. Whether the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence, if so, its effect ? 5. To what amount, if any, are the petitioners entitled ? 6. Relief. ( 4 ) THE learned Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence adduced by both the parties, held that the petitions were maintain able even without notice under section 478 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of respondents Nos. 3,4 and 5, that Shanti Devi and Kundan Lal were not guilty of contributory negligence, that Shanti Devi and Pratibha Dutt were the legal representatives of Kundan Lal and that Shanti Devi was entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 5,000. 00 only in respect of the injuries sustained by her and that Shanti Devi and Pratibha Dutt were jointly entitled to receive compensation of Rs. 26,304. 00 only in respect of the death of Kundan Lal. The learned Tribunal also held that all the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay to the respective appellants the compensation awarded by it. ( 5 ) THE Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the Delhi Transport Undertaking as well as the driver and conductor of bus No. DLP 182 and the driver of bus No. DLP 344 have filed two separate appeals against the award of the Tribunal, one in respect, of the compensation of Rs. 5,000. 00 awarded in favour of Shanti Devi and the other in respect of the compensation of Rs. 26,304. 00 awarded in favour of Shanti Devi and Pratibha Dutt and Shanti Devi and Pratibha Dutt have also filed two cross appeals claiming enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. All these appeals are disposed of by a common judgment. 5,000. 00 awarded in favour of Shanti Devi and the other in respect of the compensation of Rs. 26,304. 00 awarded in favour of Shanti Devi and Pratibha Dutt and Shanti Devi and Pratibha Dutt have also filed two cross appeals claiming enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. All these appeals are disposed of by a common judgment. ( 6 ) THE first point for determination is whether the injuries sustained by Shanti Devi and the death of Kundan Lal were due to the rashness or negligence on the part of the conductor and driver of bus No. DLP 182 and the driver of bus No. DLP 344 or whether the accident occurred only due to the negligence of Shanti Devi, Pratibha Dutt and Kundan Lal. The two petitions filed by Shanti Devi and Pratibha Dutt were disposed of together by the learned Tribunal and the evidence was recorded in petition No. 256/64 and this evidence was treated as evidence in the other petition No. 257/64, also. Public witness 11 is Shanti Devi and Public witness 13 is Pratibha Dutt. Both of them testified to the manner in which the accident occurred. According to them, they as well as the deceased Kundan Lal had actually boarded the bus No. DLP 182 and that before they could settlethemselves in the bus and while they were standing on the platform of the bus and the deceased was standing on the top step of the bus, the conductor of the bus signalled to the driver to start the bus immediately and the driver started the bus with a jerk as a result of which all the three of them fell down on the road. They further stated that immediately thereafter another bus DLP 344 came behind and ran over Shanti Devi and Kundan Lal. Shanti Devi sustained injuries on her left leg and other parts of the body and the head and chest of Kundan Lal deceased were crushed and he died immediately on the spot. The statement of Pratibha Dutt is corroborated by her statement recorded by the police immediately after the accident. The evidence of Public witness 11 and 13 is further corroborated by the evidence of two independent witnesses, namely, Public witness 6 Abdul Ghafoor and Public witness 10 Panna Lal. The statement of Pratibha Dutt is corroborated by her statement recorded by the police immediately after the accident. The evidence of Public witness 11 and 13 is further corroborated by the evidence of two independent witnesses, namely, Public witness 6 Abdul Ghafoor and Public witness 10 Panna Lal. Both of them stated that while they were standing at the bus stop near Delhi Gate, they saw Public witness 11 and 13 and the deceased Kundan Lal getting into bus No. DLP 182, that the bus started immediately with a jerk and all the three of them fell down on the road and Shanti Devi and Dundan Lal were run over by another bus DLP 344 which was coming immediately behind the other bus. The evidence of these witnesses is also corroborated by the medical evidence in this case which clearly proves that the injuries sustained by Shanti Devi as well as the deceased were caused as a result of being run over by the bus. The medical evidence disproves the case of the respondents that Shanti Devi and the deceased sustained their injuries as a result of jumping down from a running bus. In support of their case, the respondents examined 4 witnesses. R. W. 1, Pawan Kumar, is the conductor of bus DLP 344, R. W. 2, Attre, is the driver of bus No. DLP 182 and R. W. 4 Ram Prasad is the driver of bus No. DLP 344. All these witnesses are interested witnesses and their evidence apart from being contradicted by the medical evidence and the other independent evidence led by the appellants, is not corroborated by any independent evidence. R. W. 3, Vir Singh who was examined as an independent witness, has admitted that he was not examined by the police during investigation or in the criminal case that was filed against the drivers of the two buses and the conductor of bus No. DLP 182. The conductor of bus No. DLP 344 was not examined as a witness. Therefore, we agree with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the conductor and the driver of bus No. DLP 182 and the driver of bus No. DLP 344 were guilty of rashness and negligence and that the injuries sustained by Shanti Devi and Kundan Lal s death were the direct result of their rashness and negligence. Therefore, we agree with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the conductor and the driver of bus No. DLP 182 and the driver of bus No. DLP 344 were guilty of rashness and negligence and that the injuries sustained by Shanti Devi and Kundan Lal s death were the direct result of their rashness and negligence. ( 7 ) THE next question to be considered is whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive as contended by the respondents or whether it is inadequate as contended by the appellants. We will first consider the compensation awarded to Shanti Devi. According to the medical evidence, she sustained the following injuries : 1. Abrasion on the leg in the front, swelling in the middle of the left leg, tenderness in the front of the left leg over the swelling and there was a suspicion of fracture of the tibia of the left leg. 2. Abrasion on the left knee. Bruises and small abrasion on the right knee and thigh. 3. Abrasion on the left knee over the dorsem and a abrasion on the back of the right elbow. It would appear that although a fracture of the left tibia was suspected at the time she was examined by the doctor, there is no evidence that there was actually such a fracture. The injuries sustained by Shanti Devi, therefore, were of a minor nature. She has not suffered any permanent injury as a result of the accident. She claimed Rs. 500. 00 as having been spent on conveyance to the hospital and for medicines, But she did not adduce any evidence in support of this claim. The Tribunal, therefore, estimated the actual expenses incurred by her at Rs. 250. 00. It cannot be said that this estimate is unreasonable. The learned Tribunal has estimated the general damages at Rs. 4,750. 00 taking into consideration her age, namely, 57 years, and the mental suffering which she would have undergone as a result of the accident as well as on account of the injuries sustained by her. Considering the nature of the injuries and the nature of the mental suffering which Shanti Devi would have undergone, we think that the amount of Rs. 4,750. 00 awarded by the learned Tribunal as general damages is quite reasonable. Considering the nature of the injuries and the nature of the mental suffering which Shanti Devi would have undergone, we think that the amount of Rs. 4,750. 00 awarded by the learned Tribunal as general damages is quite reasonable. Therefore, we do not see any valid reason to cither reduce or enhance the amount of Rs. 5,000. 00 awarded by the learned Tribunal as compensation to Shanti Devi. ( 8 ) AS regards the compensation awarded in respect of Kundan Lal s death, the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the age of the deceased at the time of the death and the age up to which he would have lived but for the accident. Kundan Lal was aged 64 years on the date of his death. Although this was fairly a mature age, but it would appear from the evidence that the deceased was an exceptionally healthy person for his age. His good health was due to the fact that he was a sports man who was quite proficient in hockey, badminton, football and tug of war. Even at the age of 64, he was playing badminton and hockey. The father of Kundan Lal died at the age of 84 years and his mother died at the age of 90 years. Kundan Lal s elder as well as younger brothers were alive, the elder was 74 years old and the younger brother was 61 years old. Taking all these factors into consideration, the learned Tribunal estimated the life span of the deceased at 80 years and held that the life span of the deceased was cut short by the accident by 16 years. The estimate of the life span of the deceased appears to be quite reasonable and we see no valid reason to diner from the estimate arrived at by the learned Tribunal. ( 9 ) AS regards the financial loss caused to the appellants as a result of the untimely death of the deceased, the learned Tribunal took into consideration the financial resources of the deceased. According to the appellants, the deceased was drawing a pension of Rs. 187. 00 per month after he had retired as Section Officer in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 8. 11. According to the appellants, the deceased was drawing a pension of Rs. 187. 00 per month after he had retired as Section Officer in the Ministry of Home Affairs on 8. 11. 1959 and that in addition to this pension, the deceased had also been offered the post of Senior Personnel Officer in the Globe Steel Limited, New Delhi, in the grade of Rs. 440-40-1000 with a start of Rs. 520. 00 per month. The learned Tribunal did not accept the evidence that was adduced by the appellants in support of the allegation regarding the offer of the post of Senior Personnel Officer. The only evidence that was adduced in support of this allegation was a copy of the appointment letter. The original letter itself was not produced nor was the Personnel Officer of the Globe Steel Limited examined as a witness. The learned Tribunal, in our view, was, therefore, quite right in not accepting this evidence of the offer of the post of the Senior Personal Officer and in proceeding only on the basis that the deceased was getting a pension of Rs. 187. 00 per month. On the basis of this income, the learned Tribunal estimated the total income of the deceased for 16 years at Rs. 36,104. 00. From this amount, the learned Tribunal deducted the amount which would have been spent by the deceased for his personal expenses. He estimated the personal expenditure at Rs. 50. 00 per month. Taking into consideration this personal expenditure, the learned Tribunal arrived at the figure of Rs. 26, 304. 00 as the financial loss sustained by the appellants as a result of the untimely death of the deceased. It is now well-settled that when the Tribunal has taken into consideration all the relevant factors in determining the amount of compensation, then the appellate Court should not ordinarily interfere with the amount so determined. In this case we find that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration all the relevant factors and there are no reasons to justify any enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in respect of the death of the deceased. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents, however, contends that a deduction has to be made from the amount of compensation determined by the learned Tribunal on account of the lumpsum payment which would be made to the claimants. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents, however, contends that a deduction has to be made from the amount of compensation determined by the learned Tribunal on account of the lumpsum payment which would be made to the claimants. The learned Tribunal has taken this fact also into consideration and has observed that the advantage derived by the claimants by getting a lumpsum payment is neutralised by the rise in the prices of the necessities of life. This view of the learned Tribunal is supported by a number of decisions of this Court, vide Prem Singh and others v. Tika Ram and others1. Therefore, there is no justification for making any deduction from the compensation determined by the learned Tribunal on this account. ( 11 ) IN the result, all the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.