JUDGMENT : Acharya, J.—The owner of the bus No. ORU 4758, which was involved in the accident in question, has preferred this appeal. 2. Natabar Parida, a Primary School teacher, died in the accident on being dashed by the said bus. His heirs and dependants preferred claims u/s 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The Court below finds that the driver of the bus and the deceased himself were both negligent in equal proportions and so the accident took place. On that finding the Tribunal has awarded half the compensation amount which could otherwise have been awarded in this case. 4. The claimants have preferred a cross-objection claiming higher compensation than what has been awarded by the Tribunal 5. It is urged by Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that on the evidence on record the Tribunal should not have foisted any responsibility on the driver of the bus for the said accident. The evidence adduced by the Petitioners regarding the accident proper is of course not very satisfactory, but on the deposition of the conductor and the driver of the said bus, respectively O.P.W. 1 and O.P.W. 2, and several significant admissions made by them therein it is satisfactorily established that the accident took place only because of the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and the deceased was not any way responsible for the same. The accident took place at about 8 p.m. a little away from Kendrapara. O.P.W. 1 has stated that he was standing near the conductor's seat on the left side of the bus about six feet behind the driver's seat, and from there he could see as to how the accident took place. According to him, he at first saw the deceased coming from the opposite direction on a cycle on the middle of the road, and he was at that time about 40 cubits away from the bus. On being confused by the glare of the head-lights of the bus the deceased turned his cycle to his left side. On seeing this, the driver of the bus turned the vehicle to his right to save the cyclist, but the cyclist came in contact with the back side of the bus and he fell down on the road. On being confused by the glare of the head-lights of the bus the deceased turned his cycle to his left side. On seeing this, the driver of the bus turned the vehicle to his right to save the cyclist, but the cyclist came in contact with the back side of the bus and he fell down on the road. In his cross-examination he has categorically admitted that: Finding the victim confused on the road, 1 apprehended accident, and at that time the bus was at a distance of 40 cubits. From his above statements, it is quite evident that even when the deceased cyclist was about 40 cubits away from the bus he was behaving in a confused manner due to the glare of the head lights of the bus, and from the confused manner in which he was behaving the conductor of the bus apprehended an adbident. So the conductor apprehended an accident even when the bus was at a distance of 40 cubits away from the victim. O.P.W. 2, the driver of the said bus, in his examination in chief itself has stated, that when the victim was at a distance of about 15 cubits from the bus, he suddenly turned his cycle to his left side. He however says, that to save the cyclist he immediately turned the bus to its right. He was certainly not justified in turning the bus to its right side especially when the cyclist, as was expected, was actually going towards that side of the road. The driver said that as the road to the left of the bus had some ditches and beyond the road there were some trees on that side, he did not turn the bus to its left, is not worthy of reliance and does not inspire confidence. It has been elicited from O.P.W. 1 that from the part of the road on which the bus was moving there was sufficient space for the bus to go to its left. Apart from the above, when the cyclist started behaving in that confused manner while he was at a distance of about 40 cubits from the bus, the driver of the bus from that distance should have applied the brakes of the bus and should have slowed down its speed to the minimum in order to obviate all possibilities of an accident. If he would have slowed down the bus from that distance and proceeded forward on the left flank of the road without turning it to the right side of the road, to which side the cyclist was going, he, in all probability, could have avoided this nasty and fatal accident. If, while driving the bus slowly on the left side of the road the cyclist would have dashed against the bus, it would have been difficult to foist any blame on the driver of the bus. Moreover, when the driver of the bus could see the cyclist behaving in a confused manner when he was 40 cubits away from the bus and the cyclist moved towards his left when he was 15 cubits away from the bus, the driver, on no account, should have taken the bus to its right, thereby enhancing the possibility of an accident by taking the bus closer to the confused cyclist. The distance of 40 cubits from which the victim cyclist was seen behaving in a Confused manner, and the distance of 15 cubits at which he turned to go towards the left side of the road were sufficient for the driver either to stop the bus or at least to slow it down to its minimum speed in order to allow the cyclist to move out safely. Moving the bus to the right side of the road on the above admitted facts and circumstances clearly shows rash and negligent driving of the bus at that place. It also suggests that the bus was at a high speed and the driver in haste and confusion steered it to the wrong side of the road. On the, evidence on record it is quite clear that the cyclist, when he was at a distance of 40 cubits from the bus, got confused due to the glare of the head-lights of the bus. When the bus was at a distance of about 17 cubits from him he started moving to his left, i.e, to his proper side of the road. It is to be noted here that the aforesaid distance of 40 and 15 cubits have been stated by the driver and conductor of the bus, and so one does not expect any over estimation in these statements, rather possibility of under estimation cannot be ruled out. It is to be noted here that the aforesaid distance of 40 and 15 cubits have been stated by the driver and conductor of the bus, and so one does not expect any over estimation in these statements, rather possibility of under estimation cannot be ruled out. So, as the victim cyclist gave indication of his confusion due to the glare of the bus lights from a distance of 40 cubits, and turned his cycle to his left when he was at a distance of not less than 15 cubits from the bus, one cannot at all find fault with him to hold him responsible for contributory negligence. On a very careful perusal and analysis of the evidence on record, I am firmly of the view that the victim cyclist was in no way responsible for the said accident and it took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus in the manner aforesaid. So, the Tribunal was not justified to hold the victim cyclist responsible for contributory negligence and to deduct, on that account, half of the compensation amount assessed by it. 6. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the claimants (Respondents in this appeal) urged that the Court below was not justified in assessing the compensation in this case merely on the basis of the salary received by the deceased as a teacher of the school without taking into consideration his other earnings out of private tuition and Homeopathy practice. There is no convincing evidence on record to show the actual or approximate earnings of the victim from private tuition and/or Homeopathy practice. P.W. 1, the wife of the victim, only stated in her examination-in-chief that the victim was getting about Rs 100/- or Rs. 150/-from private tuition and Homeopathy practice. But in cross-examination she admitted that she did not have any personal-knowledge about the private tuitions of the deceased, and that the deceased was not a registered Homeopathy practitioner and had no clinic of his own for that purpose. There is nothing else on record about the earnings of the deceased from the said sources. The Court below has not accepted the claimants' case to the said effect, and on the vague and uncorroborated evidence of P.W. 1 it is also difficult for me to say that the deceased had any regular tangible income from the said sources. 7. There is nothing else on record about the earnings of the deceased from the said sources. The Court below has not accepted the claimants' case to the said effect, and on the vague and uncorroborated evidence of P.W. 1 it is also difficult for me to say that the deceased had any regular tangible income from the said sources. 7. The basis on which it has been found by the Court below that the victim was able to contribute about Rs. 105/- a month towards the maintenance of the claimants is quite convincing, and I do not see any reason to differ from the said finding. The compensation at that rate has been assessed for a period of 20 years, though the basis on which the said period of 20 years has been fixed is not correct. The deceased, who was 35 years old at the time of the accident, was expected to contribute the aforesaid sum of money for the maintenance of the claimants for about 20 years from the date of the accident. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was capable of contributing any amount towards the claimants after his retirement from service. Thus the compensation assessed at the aforesaid rate of Rs. 105/- per month comes to Rs. 25,200/- and as compensation in this case is to be paid in a lump sum, l/6th out of the said amount of Rs. 25,200/- has to be discounted. That way the compensation amount payable by the Appellant to the claimants comes to Rs. 21,000/-. That amount is to be paid by the Appellant to the claimants with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the claim application till the date o payment. The Court below on good grounds has directed the compensation amount to be paid to Sulochana Parida, the widow of the deceased, Respondent No. 1 in this appeal. There is no objection for the payment of the compensation amount to her. Accordingly, the compensation amount as mentioned above be paid to Sulochana Parida, who will receive the same on behalf of all the claimants. 8. It is stated by Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Appellant that Rs. 10,000/- has been deposited by the Appellant in this Court as per the order date 17.12.75 of this Court. Accordingly, the compensation amount as mentioned above be paid to Sulochana Parida, who will receive the same on behalf of all the claimants. 8. It is stated by Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Appellant that Rs. 10,000/- has been deposited by the Appellant in this Court as per the order date 17.12.75 of this Court. From the records of this case it appears that a crossed cheque for Rs. 10,000/- addressed to the Registrar of this Court has been filed in this Court. The counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 will approach the Registrar of this Court for payment of the said amount to Respondent No. 1. Mr. Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, states that the balance compensation amount shall be paid by the Appellant to Respondent No. 1 within three months from to-day. 9. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed, but the cross-objection is allowed as stated above. The Respondents will get a consolidated cost of Rs. 150/-from the Appellant as cost of the appeal and the cross-objection.