JUDGMENT : K.B. Panda, J.—This is an appeal u/s 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puri dated 7.2.1972 granting a consolidated compensation of Rs. 9,000/- to the Respondents. 2. On 27.10.1969, the bus of the Orissa Road Transport Company, Limited which was plying at Balugaon met with an accident at 11 a.m. in consequence of which one Malati Dei, wife of Hadia Sethi, Respondent No. 1, sustained injuries and died in course of the night in the hospital. Her husband is a day labourer. At the time of her death, she was aged about 28 to 29. She has left behind her husband and four children, two of whom are sons and two daughters. During the course of the appeal, Respondent No. 5, Basanti Sethi, is said to have died. Hadia Sethi, husband of the deceased and her sons and daughters laid a claim a of Rs. 25,000/- against the Appellant] Company. The defence was that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and that the deceased getting perplexed came and dashed against the bus as a result of which she sustained injuries. 3. The learned Tribunal framed six issues and held that the accident resulted out of rash and negligent driving. He discarded the defence theory that Malati herself came and dashed against the vehicle. However, regarding the quantum, in a detailed discussion, he held that if the deceased would have survived normally upto her seventieth years, she could have at least rendered service to the family for 30 years more. The Tribunal further held that her income washing cloths, if assessed at Rs. 60/- per month, her contribution to the family would have been Rs. 30/-. On that basis, he calculated the total contribution of the deceased to her family at Rs. 10,800/-, but since it was being granted in a lum sum, he reduced it to Rs. 9,000/-. 4. The legal representatives of the deceased, that is, the claimants have also filed a cross appeal for enhancement of the compensation. Both the matters were heard together. 5. On behalf of the Appellant, Mr. Murty contended that considering for sake of argument that there was rashness and negligence and her earning per day would have been Rs. 2/-, her yearly contribution would be Rs. 360/-. By depositing Rs. Both the matters were heard together. 5. On behalf of the Appellant, Mr. Murty contended that considering for sake of argument that there was rashness and negligence and her earning per day would have been Rs. 2/-, her yearly contribution would be Rs. 360/-. By depositing Rs. 5,000/- in the Bank, the family would be getting Rs. 500/- per annum as interest. In that view of the matter, even a lump sum compensation of Rs. 5,000/-on the basis of the calculation of the learned Tribunal would have been adequate for the purpose. Hence his contention was that this lump sum compensation of Rs. 9,000/- is exorbitant and it should be cut down to at least Rs. 5,000/-. Oh the other hand, Mr. Mohanty for the claimants urged that the learned Tribunal has taken a very conservative view and has only assessed the income leaving aside the services she would have rendered to the family, as a wife to the husband and mother to the children. 6. There are 3 witnesses for the claimants out of whom P.W. 3 is the husband. P. Ws. 1 and 2 are said to be witnesses to the occurrence. On that side of the opposite party-Appellant, there are four witnesses of whom O.P.W. I is the driver, O.P.W.2 the Conductor and O.P.W.3 the Motor Vehicle Expert and O.P.W.4 a formal witness, the Assistant Transport Manager of the Company. The evidence of the Motor Vehicle Expert O.P.W.3 is that due to mechanical defect, that is, defect in the brake, the accident occurred. In view of that evidence, the finding there was rashness and negligence on the part of the driver entitling the claimants for compensation cannot be disturbed. The whole question is what should be the quantum. According to Mr. Murty, there is no evidence worth the name from which the income of the deceased could be gathered. According to him, it is confined to the evidence of her husband who is interested. The husband as P.W.3 has stated- My wife was earning Rs. 5/- per day by washing cloth. On her death I am facing difficulties in going out. x x x I work as a day labourer as I cannot wash cloth properly. Ordinary females wash cloth. I at times wash cloth. P.W. 2 in a vague manner has stated that people say her income per day was Rs. 5/-to 7/-. 5/- per day by washing cloth. On her death I am facing difficulties in going out. x x x I work as a day labourer as I cannot wash cloth properly. Ordinary females wash cloth. I at times wash cloth. P.W. 2 in a vague manner has stated that people say her income per day was Rs. 5/-to 7/-. True, the evidence regarding the income of the deceased is shaky. But none-the-less the fact remains that she was doing manual work and was an able bodied woman of below 30 and a mother of four children. The learned Tribunal has fixed her income at Rs. 60/- per month. This I will not say to be an exaggerated figure. As it appears, the family was needy. The learned Tribunal has fixed the quantum of her contribution in life to the family at Rs. 10,800/-calculated at the rate of Rs. 30/- per month. In view of the lump sum amount, he has reduced it by l/6th and granted a compensation of Rs. 9,000/-. This nine thousand rupees, if put in the Bank will yield an interest of Rs. 900/- per year, which would at least work out at Rs. 75/- per month apart from her actual financial contribution to the family it cannot be said that she had no utility to the family excepting certain money. The husband evidently has lost his wife and children the mother. It is in evidence that the old mother of Hadia is now looking after the three children. Thus taking an over all picture, I would agree with the learned Tribunal that a compensation of Rs. 9,000/- in lump sum in the circum-stances is quite right and proper. In that view of the matter, the cross appeal for enhancement has to be dismissed. 7. In the result, both the appeal and the cross appeal are dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties will bear their own costs.