JUDGMENT : Parekh, J. 1. Being aggrieved by an order and judgment dated 26th April, 1979 in Application No. 7 of 1977 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pune, the Appellants (the original Applicants) have preferred this appeal. 2. Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of one Bansi (the deceased). Appellant No. 3 is Bansi's widow and Appellant No. 4 is Bansi's son. The Appellants case was that on 4th January, 1976 at about 10.00 p.m., Bansi (the deceased) was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No. MTI 6647 from Fugewadi to Depodi. That whilst he was so proceeding a State transport bus, bearing No. MHD 9880, belonging to Respondent No. 1 and driven by Respondent No. 2, came from the opposite direction. That this bus was being driven in a rash and negligent fashion by Respondent No. 2. That as a result of this rash and negligent driving, the said bus dashed against this motor cycle which was being ridden by the said Bansi and the said Bansi was knocked down. That the said Bansi sustained multiple injuries. That he was sent to hospital where he later died. That by reason of his death, the Appellants sustained a severe shock. However, at a later stage, they were advised to file an application for compensation which they did. This application came to be numbered as Application No. 7 of 1977 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pune. In this application, the Appellants claimed compensation and/or damages against the Respondents herein. The Respondents resisted this application, inter alia, contending (a) that the application was barred by the Law of Limitation and that as a matter of fact, it was the said Bansi (the deceased) who was riding his motor vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident. The Respondents, further contended that the Appellants were not entitled to damages as claimed and/or any damages at all. On these pleadings, issues were framed and evidence was led. By an order dated 26th April, 1979, the learned Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed the Appellants' application. Being aggrieved by the same, the Appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3. At the hearing of this appeal, Mr. On these pleadings, issues were framed and evidence was led. By an order dated 26th April, 1979, the learned Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed the Appellants' application. Being aggrieved by the same, the Appellants have preferred the present appeal. 3. At the hearing of this appeal, Mr. Jagdale, the learned advocate for the Appellants urged that the learned Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had erred in holding that the application of the Appellants was barred by the Law of Limitation. That as a matter of fact, he ought to have condoned the delay and allowed the application. Mr. Jagdale argued that Bansi (the deceased) was about 27 years old. That he was the only bread winner of the family. That Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were his parents whilst Appellant No. 3 was his wife who is now a widow. That Appellant No. 4 is only a minor aged about 6 years. That the death of the said Bansi had come as a tremendous shock to the Appellants and the Appellants were unable to do anything in this matter. It is only later that they were advised to consult a lawyer and they thereupon hastened to consult a lawyer and on receiving advice from him, proceeded to file the application. That looking to all these circumstances, the learned Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay and allowed the application. On the other hand, Mr. Rane, the learned advocate for the Respondents urged that admittedly the application was barred by the Law of Limitation and nothing survived. 4. Considering the rival contentions on this point, it may be stated that it is not in dispute that the accident took place on 4th January, 1976. It is also not in dispute that no Tribunal existed on the day when the accident took place. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal came into existence only on or about the 26th March, 1976. Hence, the limitation if any, must now be computed from that period, liven so, it is also an admitted position that this application was not filed within six months from the coming into being of the Tribunal, but nonetheless, the Appellants have set out the circumstances under which they did not prefer an application earlier. The Appellant Nos. Hence, the limitation if any, must now be computed from that period, liven so, it is also an admitted position that this application was not filed within six months from the coming into being of the Tribunal, but nonetheless, the Appellants have set out the circumstances under which they did not prefer an application earlier. The Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have clearly undergone a traumatic experience having lost their only son aged about 27 years and the only bread-winner of the family leaving behind him a young widow and a minor aged about 6 years. It is clear that it is in these circumstances that the Appellants found themselves too numb to be able to do anything earlier, but it is not denied that immediately on being advised by a lawyer, the Appellants took all steps to see that the application was filed without any further delay. Looking to the circumstances and the facts of this particular case, we feel that the delay ought to have been condoned and the delay is now condoned. In view of this, the contention that the application is barred by the Law of Limitation cannot now survive. 5. The next question that needs to be resolved is whether Bansi was riding his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner or whether it was Respondent No. 2 who was driving the bus belonging to Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the accident. Now, on this aspect of the matter, in so far as the Appellants are concerned, they have merely relied upon the panchanama. In so far as the Respondents are concerned, they have mainly relied upon the evidence of Respondent No. 2, the driver of the bus. It is the evidence of Respondent No. 2 that at the relevant time, he was driving the bus at less than the normal speed because of insufficient supply of diesel. He has then gone on to depose that at time of the accident, there was a truck coming from the opposite direction. That the motor cycle which was being ridden by Bansi was in fact trying to overtake the said truck. That it is in these circumstances that Bansi dashed against the bus which was being driven by him and Bansi came to sustain injuries. That the motor cycle which was being ridden by Bansi was in fact trying to overtake the said truck. That it is in these circumstances that Bansi dashed against the bus which was being driven by him and Bansi came to sustain injuries. It was brought out in cross-examination that the 1st Respondent's bus had just left the depot implying thereby that if the bus had just left the depot, it must have been with full tank and there could not be a question of the bus having insufficient diesel nor could the question of the same being driven less than the normal speed arise. The evidence of this witness on this point is clearly false. 6. Apart from this, it has also been brought out in cross-examination that Respondent No. 2, i.e. DW 1, the driver has, in his statement before the police, made no mention of any truck coming from the opposite direction or of the motor cycle which was being driven by Bansi (the deceased) trying to overtake the said truck. Furthermore, no such plea has been raised even in the written statement and it is only for the first time, in the deposition that the story of the truck has been introduced. Although such a major contradiction has been brought on record, the learned Member of the Tribunal has dismissed it by observing that the story of a truck being introduced on the scene is only an improvement and according to him, this did not detract from the evidence of Respondent No. 2. We are unable to appreciate this reasoning, for it is obvious that this story of there being a truck and of Bansi trying to overtake it has been contrived and introduced to bring the evidence of Respondent No. 2 in line with the panchanama which seems to say that the actual spat of accident was 13' from the eastern edge and 10' from the western edge of the tarred road although it is an admitted position that nobody has pointed out the actual spot of the accident. What is more is that Respondent No. 2, in his evidence, has stated that the said truck went and stopped 20' away but the contents of the panchanama falsifies this, for there is no reference to this truck in the panchanama. What is more is that Respondent No. 2, in his evidence, has stated that the said truck went and stopped 20' away but the contents of the panchanama falsifies this, for there is no reference to this truck in the panchanama. The evidence of Respondent No. 2 is hence clearly false and calculated to cover his rash and negligent act and to save himself and the other Respondents from the consequences which they would be visited. The evidence of this witness must clearly be discarded and taking an overall view of the evidence, it must now be held that it was Respondent No. 2, who was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and which caused the accident resulting in the death of Bansi. 7. This takes us to the question of quantum. There has been no dispute that Bansi was aged about 27 years and was earning about Rs. 938/- per month. His expectation of life would, therefore, be another 35 years. Considering the salary and allowing about one-third for himself, a figure of about Rs. 600/- would be available for the benefit of the family. Capitalising this amount, (i.e., 600 12 20) a sum of Rs. 1,44,000/- would be payable as compensation to the Appellant. However, Mr. Jagdale, the learned advocate for the Appellants stated that the Appellants restrain their claim only to a sum of Rs. 60,000/-. In the circumstances, a sum of Rs. 60,000/- must now be awarded to the Appellants. 8. In the result what comes about is that the appeal succeeds. The order and judgment of the learned Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pune, dated 26th April, 1979 is set aside. The Respondents are ordered and decreed to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000/- to the Appellants and interest thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of application till payment and costs of the suit and the appeal. 9. At this stage, Mr. Jagdale states that the Court may give directions for the apportionment of the amount to be received under the decree amongst the four Appellants. Accordingly, the apportionment is made as follows: Appellant No. 1 Rs. 5,000/- Appellant No. 2 Rs. 5,000/- Appellant No. 3 Rs. 30,000/- Appellant No. 4 Rs. 9. At this stage, Mr. Jagdale states that the Court may give directions for the apportionment of the amount to be received under the decree amongst the four Appellants. Accordingly, the apportionment is made as follows: Appellant No. 1 Rs. 5,000/- Appellant No. 2 Rs. 5,000/- Appellant No. 3 Rs. 30,000/- Appellant No. 4 Rs. 20,000/- Appellant No. 3 to invest the amount payable to Appellant No. 4 in a fixed deposit with some scheduled bank, initially for a period of 10 years with liberty to withdraw the interest from time to time which she will utilise for the benefit of Appellant No. 4.