JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J.—This appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the decision of the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal rejecting the claim petition of the Appellants for compensation. 2. Around 2 p.m. on 18.10.1971, one Alekha Chandra Malik, a lower Division Assistant of the office of the Accountant General, Orissa, was coming on a bicycle on the road passing by the side of the Stewart School towards Raj Bhavan. At that point of time a jeep bearing registration number O.R.P. 2502 owned by Respondent No. 1 came from the side of Raj Bhavan on the self-same road. It is alleged that the jeep was being driven rashly and suddenly wanted to turn to the right with a view to taking the road towards the State Guest House at the joining point. With a view to saving himself, the deceased-cyclist moved towards his right so that the turning would be free and the jeep could pass without dashing against him. It is alleged that the jeep was moving in such a speed that it could not take a turn and it was obliged to keep on the straight track. It collided against the cyclist as also the western culvert. As a result of the impact the deceased was thrown to a considerable distance and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. The claim was laid for compensation of Rs. 40,000/- by the parents and the widow. During the pendency of the application before the Tribunal, the father of the deceased died. 3. The owner of the jeep as also the Insurer contested the claim by denying negligence of the driver and contending that the cyclist suddenly crossed the road which led to the accident. 4. The Tribunal found that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep and therefore, did not entertain the claim. The Tribunal, however, gave a finding that in case the claim was to be allowed, a total compensation of Rs. 6,000/- was admissible to both the widows. 5. Mr. Patnaik for the claimant-Appellants challenges the findings of the Tribunal regarding the cause of the accident and that there was no negligence on the part of the motor vehicle. 4 witnesses were examined by the claimants of whom P.W. 1 is the widow of the deceased and admittedly she was not an eye witness to the accident. 5. Mr. Patnaik for the claimant-Appellants challenges the findings of the Tribunal regarding the cause of the accident and that there was no negligence on the part of the motor vehicle. 4 witnesses were examined by the claimants of whom P.W. 1 is the widow of the deceased and admittedly she was not an eye witness to the accident. P.W. 2 was working as a helper in the Radio Shop of the Home Department and was going on the road when the unfortunate accident took place. He was not an acquaintance of the deceased. He has given the details of the accident in the following way: ...The accident happened at the place where a road running east to west by the side of the guest house meets the road running south to north commencing Government house. The military camp is to the west of this road junction. The victim was proceeding on the road towards the Government house, that is to say from north to south and the jeep which caused the accident was coming from the opposite side i.e. from the Government House side. The deceased was going on a bicycle. I was also proceeding on the road towards the south and the accident happened about 30 cubits in front of me. The jeep came in speed and was about to take a bend to go towards east to the road passing by the Guest House. The victim at that time was at the road junction and seeing motion of the jeep taking a bend, he went to his right side to avoid accident, but the jeep did not take a bend because it was in speed and dashed against the victim cyclist. Thereafter, the jeep dashed against both the parapets of the culvert of the approach road of the Military camp and thereafter stopped on the road flank. The victim, as a result of the impact, was thrown out and fell in a ditch close to the northern side parapet of the culvert near the military camp and his bicycle fell on him.... His cross examination has not shaken his evidence about the details of the accident. The victim, as a result of the impact, was thrown out and fell in a ditch close to the northern side parapet of the culvert near the military camp and his bicycle fell on him.... His cross examination has not shaken his evidence about the details of the accident. The Tribunal prepared a diagram on the basis of the evidence of this witness showing the relative positions of the vehicle, the victim, the place of impact, the place where the deceased was thrown and the place where the jeep ultimately stopped. These have been numbered as 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. P.W. 3 is an Orderly Peon in the Industries Department of the Secretariate. He also saw the accident as he was going to his residence from the town on the road. According to him, he was twenty cubits away from the place of accident. His evidence is more or less similar to that of P.W.2. P.W.4 is a saloon owner. He was proceeding towards the military camp by the road passing near the Guest House to reach his residence. He was about a hundred yards away from the point of accident. He did not see the actual collision, but he corroborates the rest of the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. The driver of the jeep has not been examined by the owner. That on account of the collision with the jeep the deceased died is not in dispute. The driver of the jeep, therefore, would have been the most competent witness to depose about the manner in which the accident took place. For reasons best known to the owner, he has been withheld. P.Ws. 2 and 3 have not been disbelieved by the Tribunal. Admittedly, P.W.2 is a wholly disinterested witness. He in fact had no acquaintance even with the deceased. He belongs to a completely different establishment and there would be no justification to hold that he would be interested in the victim or the claimants in any way. P.W.3 was known to the deceased, but apart from that feature there is no interestedness. I am inclined to agree with Mr. Patnaik that the evidence of these two witnesses should, therefore, be relied upon. P.W.3 was known to the deceased, but apart from that feature there is no interestedness. I am inclined to agree with Mr. Patnaik that the evidence of these two witnesses should, therefore, be relied upon. From the evidence as also the diagram attached to the deposition of P.W.2, it is clear that the jeep was coming from the south while the deceased was moving from the north; the deceased who was on a cycle was on his left; at the point of crossing, i.e. where the road running by the side of Guest House joins, the Raj Bhavan-Stewart School Road, when the deceased was about to cross the joining point, the jeep came from the south and wanted to turn to the east to take the Guest House Road; on account of high speed, turning was not possible and the jeep instead of going towards east continued to go towards north; seeing that the jeep was taking a turn to the east, the deceased turned towards his right to avoid collision, but yet faced the accident. 6. From the evidence there is no scope to doubt that the jeep was running at a high speed. Such was the speed that a turn to the east was not possible and the vehicle had to continue to move straight on the road. As stated by the claimants' witnesses, the deceased was moving slowly on his bicycle. When he saw an uncontrollable jeep coming from the other side, he had the duty to stop or even get down from the cycle. He did not do so. It is clear from these circumstances, that there has been dereliction both on the part of the driver of the jeep as also the deceased cyclist. The finding of the Tribunal that the jeep had no negligence cannot be sustained. It was the duty of the driver to slow down the vehicle and remain within a controllable speed if he intended to turn to the right. Appropriate signal should have been shown from a distance so that others would have been aware of the true intention of the driver. The fact that the jeep has dashed against the culvert is a further feature to show that the driver was not able to control the movement of the vehicle. In these circumstances, I must hold that the driver of the jeep substantially contributed to the accident. The fact that the jeep has dashed against the culvert is a further feature to show that the driver was not able to control the movement of the vehicle. In these circumstances, I must hold that the driver of the jeep substantially contributed to the accident. The deceased cyclist was also equally responsible for it. On apportioning the liability, I think it would be appropriate to hold that the driver of the jeep and the deceased cyclist were equally responsible. 7. The deceased was a Lower Division Assistant in the Accountant General's office and at the material time was drawing a salary of Rs. 241/- as would appear from Ext. 1/A a certificate issued by the Accounts Officer of the office of the Accountant General. He was born on 7.11.1951 as would appear from Ext. 1 and therefore, he was hardly 20 years of age when he died. In fact he had been employed only for four months when death came. He had married shortly before his death and had no issues. His wife was hardly 18 when the accident took place. The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the deceased would have been contributing about Rs. 100/- to the family. I do not think, I should interfere with that finding. In view of the fact that the deceased was only 20 years of age and had at least 38 years of service to render, even without taking into account prospects of promotion and higher earning he would have been able to contribute Rs. 45,600/-. Taking into account that deceased may not have lived so long, the entire contribution is being quantified and given as a lump and similar other features, I am inclined to reduce the amount by 30 percent and thus fix the compensation at a net sum of Rs. 32,000/-. Now apportioning the compensation on the basis of liability, the claimants would be entitled to a moiety, i.e. Rs. 16,000/-. The net compensation payable, therefore, is Rs. 16,000/-. 8. I have been asked by Mr. Patnaik to apportion the compensation between the two claimants i.e. the widow of the deceased and her mother-in-law. There is evidence to show that the Accountant General's Establishment has already employed the widow of the deceased on a salary of Rs. 250/- a month. 16,000/-. The net compensation payable, therefore, is Rs. 16,000/-. 8. I have been asked by Mr. Patnaik to apportion the compensation between the two claimants i.e. the widow of the deceased and her mother-in-law. There is evidence to show that the Accountant General's Establishment has already employed the widow of the deceased on a salary of Rs. 250/- a month. She has thus been provided for while the mother-in-law, a dependent upon the compensation amount mainly for eking out her living and is aged around 45 years is un provided for. The widow (P.W. 1) has stated that her father-in-law had no properties. Taking these in view, I think it appropriate to divide the compensation money between the two claimants by holding that the dependent mother i.e. Appellant No. 2 would be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- and the widow of the deceased-Appellant No. 1 Basanti Kumari Dei would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 6,000/-. The compensation shall bear interest of six percent from the date of application till payment. As the amount is within the statutory limit. I direct that the insurer to pay the amount as directed on behalf of the insured vehicle. There would be no order for costs throughout.