B. C. Misra, J. ( 1 ) THIS first appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the award of Mr. G. C. Jain, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, dated 6th June, 1966 by which he has awarded a sum of Rs. 17,252. 00 to the claimants and has apportioned it as directed in his order. Against the award, the respondents have filed cross-objections and have claimed that the same be enhanced to Rs. 50,000. 00. ( 2 ) THE accident occurred on 6th Octobers, 1963 at about 3. 55 p. m. , when the deceased Krishan Lal Gosain was travelling on foot from Raj Ghat side towards Ring Road. The offending car, bearing registration No. BRA 7769, was alleged to have been driven by Joginder Arora, respondent No. 7 herein, (and respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal) and the vehicle was owned by J. L. Mehta, respondent No. 8 herein who has died and is represented by his legal heirs, (who was opposite party No. 2 in the court below ). The vehicle struck against the deceased, who fell down and was taken to the hospital, where he died. The car later on struck against another person and caused some injuries and it is alleged that thereafter the driver of the car sped away. The first information report was lodged in the Police Station on the basis of the statement of Inder Singh, Public Witness 1. The deceased was aged 29 years and was working as a conductor in the Delhi Transport Undertaking on a salary of Rs. 160. 00 p. m. He left behind him surviving his widow, two daughters and a son, who are respondents before me. Besides them the parents of the deceased were also arrayed as parties to the proceedings before the Tribunal but they have since died. ( 3 ) THE claim petition was filed on the allegation that the aforesaid car belonging to J. L. Mehta was being driven rashly at a high speed and on account of the negligence caused the accident, which resulted in the death of the deceased. The claim was contested on various grounds mentioned in the written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the application as framed is not maintainable ? 2. Whether the application is barred by time ? 3. The claim was contested on various grounds mentioned in the written statement. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : 1. Whether the application as framed is not maintainable ? 2. Whether the application is barred by time ? 3. Whether the application is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? 4. Whether an accident causing the death of Krishanlal was caused by car No. BRA 7769 driven by Joginder Arora as alleged in the claim petition ? 5. If issue No. 4 is proved whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No, 1 ? 6. To what amount if any are the petitioners entitled ? 7. Whether the respondent No. 1 was driving the car at the time of accident with permission, consent or knowledge or in the course of employment of respondent No. 2. Shri Jamna Lal Mehta ? 8. Relief. " All the issues have been answered by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants, which has resulted in the award mentioned above. ( 3 ) MR. R. M. Gupta, in support of the appeal, has not challenged the findings of the Tribunal with regard to issues 1, 2 and 3, but he has seriously contested the finding on issue Nos. 4, 5 and 7. The learned counsel for the parties have taken me through the records of the case. Public Witness 1, Inder Singh, has stated that he was a driver in the D. T. U. and on the day of the accident he was returning from the Depot on foot as he could not get the bus and at about 3. 50 p. m. the offending car moving at a very fast speed came from Raj Ghat side and struck against the deceased at his back, which resulted in the fall and serious injuries to the deceased. Then the car struck against another person. The witness stated that the driver of the car looked around and then sped away. He has further stated that another conductor was also going on foot at that time. Public Witness 2, Mangat Ram, is a conductor of the D. T. U, He stated that on the day of accident, he was going from the Income-tax Office side on foot towards the Depot and at about 3. He has further stated that another conductor was also going on foot at that time. Public Witness 2, Mangat Ram, is a conductor of the D. T. U, He stated that on the day of accident, he was going from the Income-tax Office side on foot towards the Depot and at about 3. 55 p. m. he saw the deceased walking about ten or fifteen feet ahead of him and then he found that the offending car came at a very high speed and struck against the deceased. The witness has stated that he himself escaped the car at a very near distance. According to the witness, the deceased fell on the ground and was seriously injured. This witness called out for the car, but the driver sped away and he had noted the number of the car. He also found that the windscreen of the car was damaged. The witness estimated that the speed of the car was about 50 miles per hour. Public Witness 5, Darshan Singh it another eye witness. He says that on the day of occurrence at about 3. 45 p. m. after taking tea in a tea-stall near the I. P. Depot, he was walking along the Ring Road when he noticed the offending car going at a very high speed which struck against the deceased, who fell down and received serious injuries and was sent to the Hospital. He also deposed that the windscreen of the car had been smashed. The first witness Public Witness 1, who accompanied the deceased to the hospital remained with the deceased for sometime and reached home late at night, and it is he who lodged the F. I. R, Ex. Public Witness 1/1. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the respondent, Joginder Arora and J. L. Mehta respondents, were examined. Joginder Arora stated that on the date of the accident he was not driving the vehicle in question and no accident had been caused by him and he came to know about the accident when he was called at the Police Station. He stated that he had borrowed the car from J. L. Mehta and had given it to a friend, Chanan Ram, who came back to him at about 6. He stated that he had borrowed the car from J. L. Mehta and had given it to a friend, Chanan Ram, who came back to him at about 6. 30 p. m. and told him that some scratches had been caused on the screen and offered the price of the screen and then he went to J. L. Mehta and gave the key of the car to his son. But he did not have any talk with Chanan Ram about the accident. The witness stated that he was related to J. L. Mehta, and he enquired from his friend as to how the screen of the car had been broken and was told that some stone struck against the glass and he did not make any further enquiries and did not know how it was struck. He denied the suggestion that he was telling a lie. J. L. Mehta, owner of the car stated that he had given his car to Joginder Arora who was not authorised to hand over the car to anybody else. In other respects, he corroborated the statement of Joginder Arora. ( 5 ) THE court below has appraised the entire oral evidence and has come to the conclusion that the three eye witnesses, Public witness 1, Public witness 2 and Public witness 5 were reliable and it accepted the version of the accident as deposed by them that the car was being driven rashly and negligently. The court below has for very good reasons given in the judgment rejected the evidence produced on behalf of the respondents. I have gone through the entire evidence over and again and I do not find any legal infirmity in the appraisal of the evidence or the reasoning of the Tribunal below. The mere fact that the eye witnesses were employees of the D. T. U. where the deceased was employed is not a sufficient ground for holding that they were interested and, therefore, had perjured themselves. It was contended that there was delay in filing the F. I. R. , but the court below has found that this delay in the circumstances of the case was not material and I am unable to differ from it. It was contended that there was delay in filing the F. I. R. , but the court below has found that this delay in the circumstances of the case was not material and I am unable to differ from it. The Tribunal below has, therefore, rightly come to the conclusion that the offending car was being driven by Joginder Arora himself and J. L. Mehta had given the car to him and the story set up of another person driving the car is an after thought and false. In these circumstances, if the car had been driven by Joginder Arora to whom the owner had given the car, the vicarious liability of the owner for the acts of the driver remains undisputed. I do not find any merit in the appeal which must be dismissed. ( 6 ) WITH regard to damages, the court below has found that the deceased was earning Rs. 158. 20 per month and he was spending Rs. 48. 20 on himself and this way the net loss to the family was Rs. 110. 00 per month. After taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, the lower court determined the loss to the family at Rs. 110. 00 per month and capitalised it by 15 years and made proportional reduction on account of lump sum payment. In this way, it arrived at a figure of Rs. 17,252. 00. Out of this amount a sum of Rs. 1,000. 00 and Rs. 2,000. 00 was ordered to be paid to the father and mother respectively and the remaining amount to the surviving respondents, viz. , widow and the children of the deceased. I have considered the matter. I find that there is no legal infirmity in the award of compensation by the Tribunal below. ( 7 ) AS a result, the appeal and the crossobjections fail and are dismissed. In view of the divided success, the parties are left to bear their respective costs.