JUDGMENT O P. Saxana, J. - This is an appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the order dated 31st July, 1976 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IV Additional District Judge, Allahabad) awarding a compensation of Rs. 2,000/- instead of Rs. 50,000/- claimed by the appellant. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 25th July, 1974, at about 11 A.M., on the G.T. Road adjoining village Ajhua, P.S. Naini, District Allahabad one Karan Singh met with an accident. He was returning home on a cycle when he was hit from behind by Truck No. U.T.E. 4595. Reapondent No. 1 is the Owner of the truck. Respondent No. 2 is the insurer. Karan Singh received severe injuries and he succumbed to the same on 28th July 1974. A report of the occurrence was lodged on the same day by P.W 5 Jamil Ahmad who was accompanying Karan Singh on an another Cycle. 3. The appellant is the mother of Karan Singh. She gave an application claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. It was said that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck. 4. The respondents contested the application for compensation on the ground that the truck in question was not involved in the accident. The plea that the application for compensation was not maintainable on account of non-joinder of the driver was also raised. 5. The Tribunal rejected the plea that the truck was involved in the accident as well as the plea that the application for compensation was bad for non-joinder of the driver. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and hence this appeal. 6. We have heard Sri V.K. Burman, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sri A. B. Saran, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The record of the case was burnt in a fire and the paper book containing the statements of the witnesses duly certified by the learned counsel before the Tribunal was filed before us. 8. The Tribunal did not record any finding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. It did not realise that such a finding was necessary before awarding any compensation against the respondents. 8. The Tribunal did not record any finding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. It did not realise that such a finding was necessary before awarding any compensation against the respondents. We have gone through the statement of P.W. 5 Jamil Ahmad who was accompanying Karan Singh at the time of the accident. The witness, Karan Singh, Suraj Pal and Bhugga were returning on cycles after selling vegetables. They were moving on the road one after the other. Karan Singh was the last person behind. He was about 10 or 12 paces ahead of Karan Singh. The truck U.T.P. 4595 came from behind and hit against Karan Singh. The evidence shows that all these persons were moving on the left patri of the road and there were on other motor vehicle at the time of accident. The witness also stated that on being struck by the truck, Karan Singh fell down at about 3 yards from the left side of the metalled portion of the road. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on two cases. In Kunju Pillai Parameshwaran Pillai v. The State, 1967, A.C.J. 377, it was held that under normal circumstances the person who hits from behind must be held to be negligent. In Rajammal v. Associated Transport Co. and another, 1970 A.C.J. 44, it was held that where the claimant produced cogent evidence to show that there was negligence on the part of the driver, it is for the owner to examine the driver to rebut that inference. An adverse inference was drawn on account of the failure to examine the driver. The respondent No. 1 also did not examine the driver in rebuttal. The evidence of P.W. 5 Jamil Ahmad proves beyond doubt that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. 9. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,000/- as compensation. The amount assessed by the Tribunal is arbitrary. No reason has been given for fixing such a low amount. The statement of P.W.4 Smt. Ram Pyari Devi is to the effect that the deceased used to sell vegetables and earned between Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- per mensem. She gave the age of the deceased as 22 years. She gave her own age as 45 years. No reason has been given for fixing such a low amount. The statement of P.W.4 Smt. Ram Pyari Devi is to the effect that the deceased used to sell vegetables and earned between Rs. 300/- to Rs. 400/- per mensem. She gave the age of the deceased as 22 years. She gave her own age as 45 years. Her statement was recorded after about a year of the accident and her age at the time of the accident can be reasonably fixed at 44 years. Even if the low figure given by Smt. Ram Pyari Devi is accepted as the income of the deceased, there can be no difficulty in holding that the deceased could spend at least Rs. 250/- per mensem for household expenditure. The annual loss suffered by the claimant appellant came to Rs. 3000/-. Even if her longevity is fixed at 60 years, the pecuniary loss for 16 years would come to Rs. 48,000/-. After allowing 25% deduction the net amount would come to Rs. 36,000/-. The claimant also deposed regarding the expenditure of of Rs. 400/- on medical expenses. She claimed Rs. 1200/- for the loss of cycle and Rs. 600/- for the funeral expenses. We are of the opinion that she was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1200/- on this account as well. The Tribunal has given no good reason for refusing her claim in respect of these amounts. The total compensation payable comes to Rs. 37,200/-. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is one of those cases in which the Tribunal ought to have framed an issue on the question of rashness and negligence and as it did not do so, it is but proper that this court should not award any pendente lite interest to the claimant-appellant. Normally the interest is payable from the date of the application for compensation but in the circumstances of the case we deem it proper to accept this submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. 11. The appeal is partly allowed. The claimant appellant is awarded a sum of Rs. 37,200/- as compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the order till payment and also the costs of the Tribunal. The costs of the appeal will be easy.