SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 18-3-1978, passed by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, chitradurga, in M. V. C. No. 22 of 1976, on its file, dismissing the petition of the claimants for compensation for the death of Badamaraiah. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the claimants that badamaraiah was going on the road near Mukabasappa Dinne on gorasamudra -Kodihali Road, on 18-3-1976, at about noon, and that the jeep bearing No. MEE 693, belonging to the Government of Karnataka, which was coming from behind with great speed being driven negligently by its driver, dashed against Badamaraiah, dragged him and killed him on the spot. On these averments the claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 75,000/- from the respondents. Claimant No. 1 is the widow of badamaraiah and claimants Nos. 2 to 4 are the children of Badamaraiah. Respondent No. 1 is the driver of the jeep, respondent No. 2 is the owner of the jeep and respondent No. 3 is the insurer of the jeep in question which caused the accident. The respondents denied their liability. According to them, the accident was not the result of the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver but it was entirely due to the actionable negligence on the part of the deceased, who darted on the road and dashed against the jeep. They contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants was exorbitant. ( 3 ) ON these pleadings the Tribunal raised the following points :- (1) Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased Badamaraiah sustained fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 18-3-1976, at noon near Mukabasappa's Dinne on gowasamudra and Kodihalli road? (2) Whether the said accident was due to rash and negligent act of R-1 the driver of jeep No. MEE 693? (3) Whether the petitioners prove that they are entitled for any compensation, if so, what quantum and from whom? (4) What order? ( 4 ) DURING the hearing, the claimants examined P. Ws. 1 to 14 and got marked exhibits P-1 to P-8-a. As against that, the respondents examined the driver of the jeep - Samiulla as D. W. 1. The tribunal appreciating the evidence on record held that the accident was not the result of rash and negligent driving of the jeep by D. W. 1. 1 to 14 and got marked exhibits P-1 to P-8-a. As against that, the respondents examined the driver of the jeep - Samiulla as D. W. 1. The tribunal appreciating the evidence on record held that the accident was not the result of rash and negligent driving of the jeep by D. W. 1. In that view, the Tribunal dismissed the petition of the claimants for compensation. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimants have come up in appeal before this Court. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants -claimants vehemently contended that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the accident was not the result of rash and negligent driving of the jeep by D. W. 1. Hence, he submitted that the claimants | were entitled to succeed. As against that, the learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 argued supporting the judgment and award of the Tribunal. ( 6 ) THE points, therefore, that arise for our consideration in this appeal are - (1) Whether the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the accident was not the result of rash and negligent, driving of the jeep by its driver - samiulla - D. W- 1; and (2) If not, whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation; and if so, to what quantum and from whom? ( 7 ) THE claimants have examined p. W. 10 - Govinda Reddy, P. W. 11- n. Giriyappa and P. W. 12-Nagaraj as eye - witnesses to the occurrence. P. W. 10-Govinda Reddy in the course of his evidence speaking about the manner of the accident has stated thus: - - - - similar is the evidence of P. W. 11 n. Giriyanna, who was going with p. W. 10-Govinda Reddy. The evidence of these two- witnesses finds full corroboration in the evidence of P. W. 12-Nagaraj who was an inmate of the jeep. He has stated thus: - - - - thus, the evidence of P. Ws. 10 to 12, which is consistent and reliable, clearly establishes that it is the jeep that went and hit Badamaraiah. It is in evidence that the deceased - Badamaraiah was nearly 65 years old- p. Ws. 10 and 11 who are younger could suddenly dart to the side of the road and save themselves. 10 to 12, which is consistent and reliable, clearly establishes that it is the jeep that went and hit Badamaraiah. It is in evidence that the deceased - Badamaraiah was nearly 65 years old- p. Ws. 10 and 11 who are younger could suddenly dart to the side of the road and save themselves. P. W. 10 has stated that he heard the sound of the jeep when it was a 'maru' behind them. Obviously, therefore, it required nimble action on their part to save themselves. This old Badamaraiah, who was going a little ahead of the road could not, on hearing the sound of the jeep move to the side of the road, and the jeep, which was coming with great speed, dashed against the deceased; from behind. It is a clear and obvious act of negligence and rashness on the part of the driver of the jeep. ( 8 ) AS against that, D. W. 1-Samiulla.-driver of the jeep in question has stated thus: -"i was coming slow in katcha road, the speed was 10 K. M. per hour. I was sounding the horn. At about 12 noon, three persons were going on the left side and another person on the right side of the road. I blew the horn. Suddenly the person who was on the right side came across and dashed and fell. The old man was at a distance of 4 or 41/2 feet in front of the jeep. The old man came running from right side to left side. I stopped the jeep at the very spot. The old man was aged 80 years. "it may at once be observed that his version is not put to the eye-witnesses even as a suggestion. The inmate of the jeep, who has been examined as d. W. 12, has clearly stated that he was seated by the side of the driver of the jeep, that P. Ws, 11 and 12 were going ahead of the jeep; and that they could move to the side of the road whereas the deceased who was going a little ahead, could not go to the side of the road and as, such the jeep went and dashed against him. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to detract from the value of his evidence. He has no axe to grind. He has no animosity against the driver. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to detract from the value of his evidence. He has no axe to grind. He has no animosity against the driver. That being so, we are persuaded to believe the evidence of P. W. Nos. 10 and 11, which finds corroboration in the evidence of P. W. 12 that the deceased was going ahead on the road and that the jeep suddenly coming with great speed and rashly, dashed against the deceased from behind, dragged him and killed him. ( 9 ) IN a case of this type of accident, it is always necessary to evaluate the oral evidence on record in the light of the circumstantial evidence. If really badamaraiah was going on the right side of the road and he started crossing the road from right side to left side when the jeep was about 4 feet away, then Badamaraiah should have come and dashed against the right side of the jeep. But the evidence on, record clearly establishes that it is the front side of the jeep that hit Badamaraiah. Apart from the oral evidence on record, we have the circumstantial evidence in the testimony of M. Najeebulla, Motor vehicle Inspector, Chitradurga, who has been examined as P. W. 2. He has stated in his evidence that front bonnet was dented and pressed. It clearly establishes that it was the front portion of the jeep that dashed against the deceased. ( 10 ) IT is obvious that the driver of the jeep could easily see the persons going on the road unless he shut his eyes. It was the duty of the driver of the jeep when he saw three or four persons going on the road, to slow down the jeep and to sound the horn. It may be mentioned in this context that the term 'speed' is a relative term. His Lordship Venkatarama Ayyar, J. (as he then was) who delivered the judgment for the Bench in the case of gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R. M. K. Velusami, AIR 1953 Mad. 981 . has observed with regard to the speed of the vehicle thus: -"a speed which would be reasonable on a fine concrete road would be excessive on a road which is full of ruts and in a state of repair. 981 . has observed with regard to the speed of the vehicle thus: -"a speed which would be reasonable on a fine concrete road would be excessive on a road which is full of ruts and in a state of repair. What might be regarded as a safe speed in an uninhabited area might become dangerous in a congested one. A speed which might be harmless during the restful hours of the night might be reckless during the business hours of the day. Whether in a given case the speed was excessive or not must be determined on a consideration of all the circumstances. "lord Du Parcq speaking in the case of Grant v. Sun Shipping Co. Ltd. , 1948 AC 549. has observed thus: - "no speed is reasonable which is not adjusted to the circumstances of the moment, including the fact that the driver is approaching a pedestrain crossing and may have to pull up quickly and within a very short distance. " if the driver-D. W. 1 could see the pedestrains going ahead on the road, he should have adjusted his speed so as to halt the jeep in case of emergency. Instead of doing this, the driver, d. W. 1 has driven the jeep rashly and negligently and has dashed against the old man-Badamaraiah, who was going on the road. It is a matter of common knowledge that yqung, old, deaf, dumb and every other person has a right to move on the road and greater responsibility rests on the driver of a vehicle to see that their liberty to move on the road is not hampered by his driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Heavier the vehicle greater the responsibility. In these circumstances, therefore, we are satisfied that the accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver D. W. 1. In the result, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal is set aside and it is held - that the accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the jeep by d. W. 1. That leads us to the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled in this case. ( 11 ) THE post-mortem report- Ex-p-1 shows that the probable age of the deceased at the time of accident was about 65 years. P. Ws. That leads us to the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled in this case. ( 11 ) THE post-mortem report- Ex-p-1 shows that the probable age of the deceased at the time of accident was about 65 years. P. Ws. 6 and 7 have deposed that the deceased was doing sheep selling business. It is further in evidence that the deceased was an agriculturist. Having regard to his age at the time of the accident, we are persuaded to hold that the deceased could live upto the age of 75 years and carry on his work. Hence, it may be taken that the average earning of the deceased per day was Rs. 10-00. That way his earning for a month would be rs. 300. Deducting half of it for his personal expenses we get Rs. 150 as loss of dependency to the family, which amounts to Rs. 1,800/- annually. For 10 years, it would be Rs. 18,000. Deducting 20% of it for uncertainties of life, and lump sum grant we get Rs. 14,400. To this Rs. 5,000, which is the conventional figure for loss to the estate of the deceased for loss of further happy life has to be added. We add the same. We also award Rs. 1,000 towards loss of consortium to the first claimant. That way the claimants are entitled to global compensaation of Rs. 20,400. ( 12 ) IN the result, therefore, the appeal is allowed The judgment and award of the Tribunal are set aside, The claimants are awarded compensation of Rs. 20,400/- along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. They shall also recover the costs of the proceedings throughout. Claimants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are majors and they cannot be treated as dependants of the deceased. Rs. 14,400 that we have fixed towards loss of dependency in addition to Rs. 1000/- granted for loss of consortium, shall go to the first claimant-widow of the deceased; Rs. 5,000/- shall be shared by all the claimants as it goes by inheritance under personal law. Under Sec. 110 (B) of the Motor Vehicles Act, we direct that the entire amount of compensation that we have awarded along with costs and interest, shall be paid over to the claimants in the proportion indicated above by respondent No. 3- the Karnataka Government Insurance department, Bangalore. Under Sec. 110 (B) of the Motor Vehicles Act, we direct that the entire amount of compensation that we have awarded along with costs and interest, shall be paid over to the claimants in the proportion indicated above by respondent No. 3- the Karnataka Government Insurance department, Bangalore. The entire costs and the full interest shall be paid over to the first claimant along with Rs. 15,400 awarded to her. Rs. 5,000 shall be paid over to all the claimants or to their authorised agents in equal shares. The respondents shall bear their own costs throughout. --- *** --- .