JUDGMENT H.G. Mishra, J. 1. This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the award dated 26.3.79 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandleshwar dismissing the claim of the Appellants. 2. Facts essential for the decision of the appeal are as under: The claimant-Appellants submitted on 23.6.1978 an application for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, the Act) before the learned Claims Tribunal on the allegations that the claimant No. 1 is wife, claimant Nos. 2 3 and 4 are minor sons and claimant No. 5 is mother of Ramsumaran Pandey, the deceased. It was on 28.12.1977 at about 10 30 a.m. that on a Bullet motor cycle bearing registration No. MPM 6155, driven by Gopaldas (AW6), Sureshchandra (AW2) and Ramsumaran Pandey were sitting one after the other on its pillion. They were going to Anjad. When they came near a culvert between villages Mandwada and Fatyapur, head light of the motor cycle was switched on. It was at this time, that they saw a local passenger bus (bearing registration No. MPF 7498) coming from the opposite direction at a fast speed. The speed of the bus was not lowered down inspite of signal given by the motor cyclist for the purpose. The bus dashed against the motor cycle and the persons riding on the motor cycle sustained injuries on their right legs and the leg-guard, mudguard and light glass of the motor cycle were damaged. This accident was occasioned due to rashness and negligence of the driver of the bus Anwarkhan, Respondent No. 1 during the course of his employment for and on behalf of the Corporation, Respondent No. 2 owner of the said bus. Ramsumaran Pandey and Sureshchandra were carried in the bus to hospital situated at Thikri. There, First Information Report (Ex. P/35) was submitted in writing by Jagdishchand Gupta alias Jagdish Kumar Gupta (AW3) at 12.30 p.m. Ramsumaran Pandey and Sureshchandra were given first-aid in the hospital at Thikri. There, the doctor asked them to be shifted to Indore because due to seriousness of their injuries, treatment at Thikri was not possible. Accordingly, Ramsumaran Pandey and Sureshchandra were taken to Indore where Ramsumaran Pandey was admitted for treatment in Tiwari Nursing Home. X-ray was also taken of the right leg of Ramsumaran Pandey. There, the doctor asked them to be shifted to Indore because due to seriousness of their injuries, treatment at Thikri was not possible. Accordingly, Ramsumaran Pandey and Sureshchandra were taken to Indore where Ramsumaran Pandey was admitted for treatment in Tiwari Nursing Home. X-ray was also taken of the right leg of Ramsumaran Pandey. As a result of the injuries sustained by him, Ramsumaran Pandey died on 21.1.1978. At the time of the accident, Ramsumaran Pandey was aged about 32 years and was getting a salary of Rs. 375/- being a Line-man in the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board. He was also earning about Rs. 400/- per month by doing private job of electric motor repairs etc. The loss of dependency has been assessed at Rs. 600/- per month. On the basis of these facts, the claimants have claimed by way of compensation: (a) For loss of dependency Rs. 3,00,000/- (b) For loss of company Rs. 1,00,000/- (c) For mental agony Rs. 50,000/- (d) For medical treatment Rs. 5,000/- in all Rs. 4,55,000/- from the Respondents being liable jointly and severally to pay the same. 3. The claim was resisted by the Respondents on the grounds that : (1) no accident did take place as alleged by the claimants, (2) at the relevant time, three persons were riding on Royal Enfield (Bullet) motor cycle. The motor cycle was being driven at a very high speed in a zigzag manner. At the time, when the motor cycle had just crossed the Rapat and the Respondent No. 1' driver of the bus had just proceeded ahead, the person driving the motor cycle lost balance and consequently the motor cycle fell into a trench about 2 to 2 feet deep on the southern side of the road and thereby all the three persons sitting thereon sustained injuries. Accordingly, the Respondents are not liable in the matter and (3) that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 150/- to 175/- merely; and as such, the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. After recording evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim on the findings (i) that no accident as alleged by the claimants took place and (ii) that the deceased Ramsumaran Pandey did not sustain injuries on account of the accident. 150/- to 175/- merely; and as such, the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. After recording evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim on the findings (i) that no accident as alleged by the claimants took place and (ii) that the deceased Ramsumaran Pandey did not sustain injuries on account of the accident. In case it is held that Ramsumaran Pandey sustained injuries in the accident caused by the rashness and negligence of the Respondent No. 1 the loss of dependency being Rs. 250/- to the claimants, they can get an amount of Rs. 35,000/- by way of compensation with interest thereon @ 6% per annum from 1.1.1978 and not from the date of the accident, i.e., 28 12.1977. Aggrieved by this award the claimants have preferred this appeal. 5. In this appeal, it was contended by Mr. B.K. Samdani, learned Counsel for the Appellants (1) that the learned Claims Tribunal has acted illegally in holding that the accident was not caused by the bus as alleged; (2) that the accident was occasioned due to rashness and negligence of the Respondent No. 1; (3) that the Respondents are liable to pay compensation and that the compensation awardable to the Appellants will come to more than what has been assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal. Mr. M.L. Dhupar, learned Counsel argued in support of the impugned award. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we have come to the conclusion that the appeal deserves to be allowed to the extent indicated hereinafter. 7. In order to prove that the accident took place and that it occasioned by the rashness and negligence of Anwarkhan, the Respondent No. 1, the driver of the bus, the claimants have examined Sureshchandra (AW2) and Gopal Das (PW6). As deposed by Sureshchandra (AW2), Gopaldas (PW6) was driving the motor cycle and on its pillion, he was sitting, Ramsumaran Pandey sitting further behind him. He further stated that at the time of crossing the culvert, the head light of the motorcycle was switched on by him. When they had just crossed the culvert, they observed the bus coming from opposite direction at excessive speed. The rear wheel portion of the bus dashed against the leg-guard of the motor cycle and their right legs got injured. As a consequence thereof, they fell down. However, at that time, the bus went ahead, being driven at full speed. When they had just crossed the culvert, they observed the bus coming from opposite direction at excessive speed. The rear wheel portion of the bus dashed against the leg-guard of the motor cycle and their right legs got injured. As a consequence thereof, they fell down. However, at that time, the bus went ahead, being driven at full speed. It was only from a distance of about one furlong ahead that the 'buswalas' came back to see them and ultimately took them in the bus to hospital at Thikri. The testimony of this witness does not appear to have been shaken inspite of lengthy cross-examination. What has been brought out in the cross-examination rather clarifies the details which were omitted in the examination in-chief. In para 23 he deposed that head light of the motor cycle was switched on at a distance of three yards after crossing the culvert and at that time, the bus belonging to the Corporation was at a distance of 20 to 25 yards. In para 24 he further stated that even after light of the motor cycle was so switched on, the driver of the bus did not slow down its speed. In para 28 he has also deposed that level of the metal road and kachcha road on both sides thereof was even. In para 29, he has categorically stated that after the rear portion of the bus dashed against them, they fell down on their right side. Gopaldas (AW6) substantially corroborates Sureshchandra (AW2). He states that at the relevant time, when just be fore crossing the culvert, he switched head light of the motor cycle on. At that time, the bus was coming from the opposite direction driven at a high speed. Inspite of his giving signal, the speed of the bus was not lowered down and rear portion of the bus dashed against the leg-guard of the motor cycle as also against them. As a consequence of this accident, they sustained injuries in their right legs and leg-guard, mud-guard and glass of head light of the motor cycle also got damaged. At the relevant time, the motor cycle was on the correct side i.e. left side of the road. As a consequence of this accident, they sustained injuries in their right legs and leg-guard, mud-guard and glass of head light of the motor cycle also got damaged. At the relevant time, the motor cycle was on the correct side i.e. left side of the road. The 'bus-walas' went on proceeding ahead and crossed the culvert with great speed and it was only when the passengers shouted to the effect that motor-cycle-walas have been injured, let them be rescued, that the 'bus-walas' came back to them. Since the injuries sustained by them were of serious nature they were carried to hospital at Thikri. This witness has also withstood successfully test of the cross-examination. He stated (in para 12) that he had observed the bus from a distance of about 50 to 60 yards. At that time, the culvert was about 10 to 12 yards. At that time, when he crossed the culvert, distance between him and the bus was about 8 to 10 paces. He further deposed (in para 14) that the bus-wala did not give him side. Consequently, he took the motor-cycle below metalled portion of the road and proceeded ahead. He further deposed (in para 15) that the bus-driver first took the bus off the road and soon thereafter came again on the road. At that time, portion of the bus between its front wheel and rear wheel, dashed against leg-guard of the motor cycle and caused injuries to their right legs. The mudguard of the motor cycle also got damaged. Since Gopaldas was driving the motor-cycle, he can be regarded to be in the best position to depose on the point as to which part of the incoming vehicle dashed against the motor cycle. Consequently, what has been stated (in para 15) by Gopaldas (AW6) on the point during his cross-examination has to be given more weight than what has been stated by Sureshchandra (AW2) on the point. They appear to be truthful witnesses and there does not appear to be any justification to discard their testimony unworthy of credence. Thus, it is proved by Sureshchandra (AW2) and Gopaldas (AW6) that the accident was caused by the bus and it was occasioned due to rashness and negligence of Anwarkhan, the Respondent No. 1, who was driving the bus of the Corporation, Respondent No 2 during the course of his employment for and on their behalf. 8. Thus, it is proved by Sureshchandra (AW2) and Gopaldas (AW6) that the accident was caused by the bus and it was occasioned due to rashness and negligence of Anwarkhan, the Respondent No. 1, who was driving the bus of the Corporation, Respondent No 2 during the course of his employment for and on their behalf. 8. Faced with the situation Mr. Dhupar contended that the story narrated by AW2 Sureshchandra and AW6 Gopaldas has to be discarded as improbable because if the bus had really dashed against the motor cycle and the occupants thereof on their right side, they would have fallen on their left side and not to their right. Their argument does not appear to be worth acceptance. After the bus had dashed against leg guard of the motor cycle and the occupants thereof against their right legs, it is not unnatural that they will recline towards their right. Accordingly the testimony of AW2 (Sureshchandra) and AW6 (Gopaldas) cannot be rejected as improbable more so when no injury was sustained by the occupants of the motor cycle on their left side. 9. In rebuttal, the Respondents have examined besides Anwarkhan, the Respondent No. 1, Thakurgir (NAW 2) and Surjitsingh (NAW 3). What Anwarkhan (as NAW 1) states is that on seeing the light of the motor cycle he brought the bus to a standstill and parked it on the conductor side of the road. The motor cycle went ahead and crossed the culvert. Thereafter, he brought the bus on the road and began to cross the culvert. Thereafter, he saw in the side-glass of the bus that the motor-cyclewalas were standing and their motor cycle had fallen down into a trench. Thereafter, he alongwith the conductor alighted from the bus and went near the persons who had so fallen down and were crying for help. He further states that the person whose leg got fractured was carried in the bus to hospital at Thikri. He also admits that he had lodged the report in writing at the Police Station. In his cross-examination (para 7) he states that after observing the light given by the motor-cyclist, he lowered-down the speed and proceeded in second gear at a speed of about 30 kilometers. In para 9, he further deposes that the motor cyclist was driving his vehicle on centre of the metalled road. In his cross-examination (para 7) he states that after observing the light given by the motor-cyclist, he lowered-down the speed and proceeded in second gear at a speed of about 30 kilometers. In para 9, he further deposes that the motor cyclist was driving his vehicle on centre of the metalled road. In para 15, he deposes that the only person who sustained injury was the person who was sitting last on the pillion of motor-cycle and who was an employee in the Electricity Board and that no other person sustained any injury. However, had the Respondent No. 1 really brought the bus to a dead-stop, there appears no reason why the accident should have taken place. It is also significant to note that although Respondent No. 1 Anwarkhan has admitted factum of having lodged written-report with the Police at Thikri, yet neither the original report has been produced nor copy which has to be given to the person lodging the First Information Report has been brought on record. Non-production of the First Information Report leads to an adverse inference against the Respondents to the effect that the report if produced, would have gone against them. Moreover, in the written-statement the stand taken by the Respondents is that after seeing the motor cyclist who was driving the motor cycle at excessive speed and with recklessness, he (Respondent No. 1) had taken the bus off the road and parked it. However, in the statement of Anwarkhan, Respondent No. 1 there is a departure on the point inasmuch as he states that it was after both vehicles had crossed the culvert that he observed from the side-glass that all the persons riding the motor cycle were standing near the trench in which the motor cycle had fallen down. Thus, viewed the statement of Respondent No. 1 does not appear to be worthy of credence. Thakurgir (NAW 2) who claims to be a passenger travelling in the bus at the relevant time, states that it was after the motor cycle with the three persons had crossed the bus, that the bus driver proceeded ahead and that it was only thereafter, that the driver of the bus observed in the side glass of the bus that the motor cyclists had fallen in a trench. Observing so, he stopped the bus. Thereupon, the conductor asked the driver as to what happened. Observing so, he stopped the bus. Thereupon, the conductor asked the driver as to what happened. On being so asked, the driver told him that the motor cycle walas have fallen down in a trench. Thereafter, the passengers, driver and others went there and saw that three persons who were riding the motor-cycle had fallen down. At that time the Respondent No. 1 told them that they had met with the accident on account of loss of balance of the motorcycle. Thereafter, all the three persons were taken to hospital at Thikri and the Respondent No. 1 went to lodge the First Information Report at the Police Station there. The statement of this witness is at variance from that of Anwarkhan, Respondent No. 1 himself as the latter does not depose as to the factum of his having told the injured persons that they had fallen in the trench on account of loss of balance over the motor cycle. That apart, the Respondent No. 1 deposes that he carried in the bus only the last person who was sitting on the motor cycle and who was an employee in the M.P.E.B. (meaning thereby Ramsumaran Pandey), but Thakurgir states that all the three persons who were riding the motor-cycle had sustained injuries and were carried in the bus to the hospital at Thikri. Thus, the testimony of Thakurgir does not appear to be worthy of credence. Surjitsingh (AW3), the conductor of the bus, states that the Respondent No. 1 after seeing the motor-cycle took the bus off the road and brought it to stand still and that it was only after the motor-cycle had passed that the bus proceeded ahead and that, it was only while ascending the steep portion of the road, that the driver stopped the bus. At that time, the witness asked Respondent No. 1 as to why the bus had been stopped. Thereupon, after peeping in the side-glass, the Respondent No. 1 told him that the three persons riding the motor cycle had fallen down in a trench- He further states that thereafter, that two or three passengers had gone there and found that out of the three persons, condition of Mr. Pandey was more serious. Accordingly, with the help of the passengers, Mr. Pandey was put inside the bus and taken to the hospital at Thikri and admitted there for medical treatment. Pandey was more serious. Accordingly, with the help of the passengers, Mr. Pandey was put inside the bus and taken to the hospital at Thikri and admitted there for medical treatment. The witness further states that he asked the driver to lodge the First Information Report at Police-Station Thikri. Now, there is a variance in this narration of the events with that of the other witnesses of the Respondents. No doubt, Surjitsingh and Thakurgir deny the factum of any accident between the bus and the motor-cycle. However, the reason which they assign to state so that if there had been a collision, they would have heard the noise. However, they did not rule out the possibility of the bus having dashed against the person of these who were riding the motor-cycle as in such an event, no noise can be produced. Accordingly, the evidence led by the Respondent is unworthy of credence and the same does not constitute an effective rebuttal of the evidence led by the claimants on the point. As between a motor cycle and the driver of passenger bus, undoubtedly, the latter's responsibility to use care and diligence is greater. The duty to use care increases proportionately with the danger involved in dealing a particular type of vehicle. After having observed the motor cycle crossing the culvert, it was the duty of Respondent No. 1 to have taken all precautions, but it appears that he did not lower down the speed of the bus and sound the horn. He appears to have continued to drive the bus with great speed which went ahead dashing against the motor cycle and the persons riding it till the passengers in the bus raised hue and cry and asked him to stop the bus. The factum of accident having been caused by the bus has been mentioned in the timely lodged First Information Report (Ex. P/35), AW3, (Jagdishchandra alias Jagdishkumar Gupta) has proved the factum of lodging the report. The aforesaid features of the evidence have not been given due weight by the learned Claims Tribunal. 10. Accordingly, differing from the learned Claims Tribunal, we hold that the accident was caused by the passenger bus and that it was occasioned due to rashness and negligence on the part of Anwarkhan, Respondent No. 1. 11. The aforesaid features of the evidence have not been given due weight by the learned Claims Tribunal. 10. Accordingly, differing from the learned Claims Tribunal, we hold that the accident was caused by the passenger bus and that it was occasioned due to rashness and negligence on the part of Anwarkhan, Respondent No. 1. 11. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that there could not have been any accident without negligence of the Respondent No. 1. Accordingly, it was for the Respondents to have explained and shown that it occurred without fault on the part of Respondent No. 1. Accordingly, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can also be regarded to apply to the situation. The accident in question by its very nature is more consistent with its being caused by negligence for which the Respondent No. 1 is responsible than by any other cause. Accordingly, in this case, the mere fact of the accident is prima facie evidence of such negligence and as such, the burden shifted to the Respondents to show that it occurred without any fault of the driver of the bus, i.e., the Respondent No. 1 which they have failed to discharge. 12. Since undoubtedly Anwarkhan was driving the bus at the relevant time during the course of his employment for and on behalf of the Respondent-Corporation, he is actually and the Respondent-Corporation is vicariously liable in the matter. 13. This brings us to the quantum of compensation awardable to the claimants. Learned Claims Tribunal has held that (a) the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 350/- and (b) that after giving allowance of Rs. 100/- which must have been spent by the deceased on himself, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 250/- and (c) that the age of the deceased was 35 years at the relevant time and (d) that he could have worked upto the age of 58 years, i.e. the age of retirement. Accordingly, the compensation has been determined by the Claims Tribunal at Rs. 25,000/-. Rs. 7,000/- have been awarded as compensation in respect of mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- have been awarded as expenses on medical treatment. Thus, in all Rs. 35,000/- is the amount of compensation found payable in the event the claim is allowed. Accordingly, the compensation has been determined by the Claims Tribunal at Rs. 25,000/-. Rs. 7,000/- have been awarded as compensation in respect of mental agony and Rs. 3,000/- have been awarded as expenses on medical treatment. Thus, in all Rs. 35,000/- is the amount of compensation found payable in the event the claim is allowed. Now, there is evidence led by the claimants that besides being a line-man in the employment of the M P. Electricity Board, the deceased used to earn by doing private job of electric fitting and electric-motor repairs. Satyalata (AW1) wife of the deceased states that her husband's monthly income from other sources was Rs. 400/-. Nothing has been brought in her cross-examination on the basis of which, it may be held that there were no other sources of income. Accordingly, it appears reasonable to conclude that besides Rs. 350/- drawn by him as salary from the M.P.E.B. as held by the learned Claims Tribunal, the deceased must have been earning atleast about Rs. 100/- per month by doing private work. Thus, his monthly earnings comes to Rs. 450/-. Now giving margin of Rs. 150/- as an amount spent by the deceased on himself, the loss of dependency works to Rs 300/- per month. Having regard to the fact that the deceased could have continued in service for a period of 23 years till attainment of age of superannuation, it would be reasonable to apply multiplier of 15 adopting the conventional method of awarding compensation. Accordingly, the loss of dependency works to Rs. 300/- 1215= 54,000/-. After making a deduction @ 15% from this amount by way of uncertainties of life, the amount awardable works out to Rs. 45,900/-. Adding to this an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as amount spent on medical treatment as found by the learned Claims Tribunal, the total amount of just compensation awardable comes to Rs. 48,900/-. The claimant-Appellants will get this amount from the Respondents, their liability being joint and several in the matter. On this amount the claimants will get interest from the date of submission of the application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal i.e., 23.6.1978 at the rate of 6 per cent per annum till its realization. 48,900/-. The claimant-Appellants will get this amount from the Respondents, their liability being joint and several in the matter. On this amount the claimants will get interest from the date of submission of the application for compensation before the Claims Tribunal i.e., 23.6.1978 at the rate of 6 per cent per annum till its realization. The Claims Tribunal has while recording the alternative finding with regard to the compensation awardable has directed interest to run from a period prior to the submission of the application for compensation by the claimants before the Claims Tribunal. This was clearly without jurisdiction as the jurisdiction conferred on the Claims Tribunal to award interest does not travel beyond the date of submission of application by virtue of Section 110-CC of the Act. Now, accordingly, we have directed the interest to run from the date of submission of the application under Section 110-A of the Act, as stated above. Out of this amount Rs. 14,000/- (fourteen thousand) will be payable to Satyalata, wife of the deceased, Rs. 10,000/- each will be deposited in a nationalized bank in the names of the minors in fixed deposit account upto the age of attainment of majority of each one of them. Satyalata, the claimant No. 1 will be at liberty to withdraw the amount of interest in case of need to meet the requirements of education and bringing up her minor sons claimant-Appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and the rest of the amount, i.e., Rs. 4,900/- will be payable to Yashodabai, mother of the deceased. Costs all throughout will be paid by the Respondents to the Appellants. Counsel's fee according to schedule, if certified. Appeal dismissed.