JUDGMENT B.D. Agarwal, J. - This appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Mainpuri dated April 30, 1977. 2. The accident giving rise to this proceeding occurred on Apiil 24, 1976 around 1100 A.M. The victim TJdip Kumar aged about 16 years was son of the respondents No. 1 and 2. He had appeared in the High School Examination, the result whereof was declared subsequent to his death. On a bicycle he was proceeding from north to south towards the city. There were other boys including PW Rajeev along with him on another cycle. Bus No. UPB 4697 belonging to the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and driven by the respondent no. 5 came over from south to north on its way from the Mainpuri Bus station towards Etah. This was part of the Highway running , between Agra-Etah. According to the appellant's case the bus dashed against Udip Kumar from the front resulting in injuries which proved fatal instantaneously. First information report was made by PW Rajeev the same day at 11.30 AM. The claim was lodged under section 110-A of the Motor 1 Vehicles Act before the Tribunal od September 3, 1976 wherein the claimants prayed for compensation in the amount of Rs 1,10,000/-. In defence the theory set up by the respondent no. 5 (the driver) and the Corporation to whom the Bus belonged, was that the bicycle was being driven by another person and that Udip Kumar was stated on the carrier thereof, it as denied that the Bus was taken rashly or negligently and assertion was made to the effect that at the sight of the approaching bus, the boy who was driving the cycle, lost the balance and as a result Udip Kumar was thrown out by the side thereof whereas the person who rode the bicycle escaped unhurt. 3. Upon considering the evidence the Tribunal came to the finding that the accident took place due to the rash or negligent act of the driver in the course of his employment in the Corporation and the theory put forward from the other side in reply is not established. The compensation awarded is a sum of Rs. 13,500/- with interest. Aggrieved the Corporation has preferred this appeal cross objection has been filed for the claimants-respondents. 4. The compensation awarded is a sum of Rs. 13,500/- with interest. Aggrieved the Corporation has preferred this appeal cross objection has been filed for the claimants-respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that upon the evidence placed on the record, this could not be taken to be a case of rashness or negligence on the part of the respondent no. 5. I find this contention unacceptable. There is no controversy with respect to the place or the time when the accident took place. It was around 11.00 A M. on the main road. The deceased Udip Kumar was proceeding on bicycle from north to south and the was to his left. The bus approached from south to north proceeding as it did from the MaiDpuri Bus station towards district Etah PW Rajeev was present on the occasion on another bicycle. He was in the company of the deceased. He testified that Udip Kumar was alone on the bicycle driven by him; it is not correct to say that the cycle was being driven by someone else The bicycle indeed had no carrier attached to it and this is a thing which could be verified at the spot also since the bicycle was damaged as well According to him, the Bus was being driven at a high speed and it stopped only after having moved ahead for 70-80 paces when those sitting in and persons on the road shouted at the accident. There was no horn given by the bus-driver either. The bus, it is further stated, knocked Udip Kumar from the front. Corporation was made of this version by PW Yudhisthar Singh Advocate who was on bicycle going to the Collectorate. He was behind the bus at a short distance. It has been stated by him that Udip Kumar was alone on the cycle; the bus stopped at a distance of 80-85 paces only; it was proceeding to its right. The Tribunal has placed reliance on this evidence which to my mind, inspires confidence. 5. In contrast the deposition of DW Khan Sahai (respondent no 5), the driver stands self-condemned. He attempted to make out that he was taking the bus slowly and also that Udip Kumar struck the same by its side and not the front According to him, Udip Kumar was seated on the carrier of the bicycle and it was being driven by another person. He attempted to make out that he was taking the bus slowly and also that Udip Kumar struck the same by its side and not the front According to him, Udip Kumar was seated on the carrier of the bicycle and it was being driven by another person. All this is contrary to what this witness narrated in the first information report which he lodged on April 24, 1976 itself around 4.30 P.M. The report made was in writing and he has been confronted with the same. The report conspicuously marks no mention that the Bus was being taken with the speed of 20-25 km per hour only, nor does it recite that there were cycle riders on the two sides of the road. About blowing of the horn also, the report is silent The witness admits that he became aware of the accident only subsequently. According to him the Bus stopped at a distance of 4 to 5 paces only. This clearly is an after thought and is not consistent with the admitted fact that having left the Bus he managed to run away. The contention for the other side that it is only after having moved for 80 to 85 paces that the Bus came to hault and the driver took to his heels leaving the Bus, is thus supported from the testimony of the driver as well. The fact that despite the pressure brake having been applied, the Bus could not be brought to an hault before it had covered 80 85 paces, also suggests strongly that it was being driven at a high speed In the report, it is also worthy of note, the respondent no. 5 did not say that Udip Kumar was struck by the side of the bus. The improvement attempted by him from bis earlier version was rightly discarded by the Tribunal. 6. Consideration being bad to the evidence on record, it may not be doubted that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the respondent no. 5. 7. As regards the quantum of compensation, the deceased, as mentioned above. was aged about 16 years and had appeared in the High School Examination which he passed in 11 division. The respondent no 2 who is the father of the deceased was at the relevant time a practising lawyer in Mainpuri. 5. 7. As regards the quantum of compensation, the deceased, as mentioned above. was aged about 16 years and had appeared in the High School Examination which he passed in 11 division. The respondent no 2 who is the father of the deceased was at the relevant time a practising lawyer in Mainpuri. He has put his earning from legal practice at about Rs. 600/- per month. In addition he pointed that he is possessed of certain agricultural lard etc. Longevity in the family is there as stated by the respondent no. 2; his father aged about 87 years was alive when the claim was disposed of and his grand father also attained almost that age. The mother of the deceased, namely, Smt. Shanti Prabha (respondent no. 1) was aged about 28 years when the accident took place According to the estimate put forward by the respondent no. 2 himself in the witness box, he could expect Udip Kumar to earn recurred Rs. 600/- per month. His expectation was that Udip Kumar could contribute Rs 150/- per month approximately towards the family. The Tribunal may not be said to be wring in taking the view that the contribution towards the maintenance of his mother by Udip Kumar may not have possibly been over Rs. 75/- per month. The annual contribution was thus calculated to be Rs. 900/- and on this basis the compensation arrived at Rs. 13.500/- is rational. In any case it is not so inadequate as to justify interference in appeal nor may this be asserted to be excessive on the facts of he case. It may be stated to proceed rather on a balanced approach to relevant considerations. 8. Having regard to the discussion made in the above, the appeal and the cross objection both are dismissed. Costs on parties.