JUDGMENT : H.N. Seth and C.J., J.—The Appellants who are widow, mother and three minor children of the deceased, Mahesh Sharma, have come up in appeal against the award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (2nd Additional District Judge, Mathura) dated 28-2-78 awarding them compensation amounting to Rs. 5000/- only. 2. Sri Mahesh Sharma was involved in an accident with Bus No. HRM 7094 belonging to Haryana Rajya Pariwahan as a result of which he died on 21st September, 1976. According to the claimants, the deceased, on the date of occurrence, was going on his motor cycle to village Allapur from Mathura side to Delhi side. Bus No. HRM 7094 driven by the driver Kalu Ram was coming from Delhi side and was proceeding towards Mathura. As Mahesh Sharma tried to turn towards the right, the bus which was being driven negligently by Kalu Ram collided with bake. Portion of his motor cycle. Mahesh Sharma fell down and eventually succumbed to the injury received by him. According to the claimants Mahesh Shatma was a young man aged 34 years and he was at that time earning a sum of Rs 750/- p. m. They therefore, claimed that they were entitled to damages amounting to Rs. one loc. 3. The claim made by the Appellants was contested by Haryana Rajya Pariwahan and driver, Kalu Ram. According to the Defendants, the accident which took place could be attributed to any negligence on the part of the driver and as such the Appellants were not entitled to claim any compensation from them. 4. The Claims Tribunal, after going through the evidence produced in the case, came to the conclusion that the accident which took place was as a result of contributory negligence on the part of both the bus driver and the deceased, Mahesh Sharma. It, however, opined that in the circumstances, the negligence on the part of Mahesn Sharma was 10 times more than that of K1lu Ram. While calculating the quantum of damages, it came to the conclusion that having regard to the fact that the deceased was at the time of accident drawing a salary of Rs. 750/-, the total and lair amount of compensation to which his legal representatives would be entitled to should, in the circumstances, be computed at Rs. 60,000/-. While calculating the quantum of damages, it came to the conclusion that having regard to the fact that the deceased was at the time of accident drawing a salary of Rs. 750/-, the total and lair amount of compensation to which his legal representatives would be entitled to should, in the circumstances, be computed at Rs. 60,000/-. Hoverer, in view of the tact that one of the claimants, namely Smt. Santosh Sharma was an earning member, the Tribunal thought that it would be proper to reduce the total amount of compensation by a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. In view of the fact that the accident took place as a result of contributory negligence both on the part of the deceased Mahesh Sharma and the bus driver, Kalu Ram the Tribunal held that the claimants were entitled to only l/10th of the total amount of Rs. 50,000/-. 5. Aggrieved the Appellants have come up in appeal before this Court. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants did not question the total quantification of the compensation to which the claimants had been entitled, had there been no negligence on the part of Mahesh Chandra, at has. Iofiooh. He. However, contended that in the circumstances, the Claims Tribunal was not justified in concluding that the extent of negligence on the part of the deceased. Mahesh Sharma was 10 times more than that of the bus driver. According to him the accident was a result of negligence on the part of the bus driver and that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased, Mahesh Sharma. 7. He also questioned the propriety of the order of the Claims Tribunal whereby he reduced the quantum of compensation from Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- on the ground that one of the claimants. Smt. Santosh Sharma was herself an earning member. Learned Counsel also submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in not awarding any interest on the amount which it had eventually awarded to the claimants. 8 Having heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and perused the record of the case, we are of the opinion that the finding of the Claims Tribunal that Mahesh Sharma had been ll) times more negligent than the truck driver cannot be said to be erroneous. 8 Having heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and perused the record of the case, we are of the opinion that the finding of the Claims Tribunal that Mahesh Sharma had been ll) times more negligent than the truck driver cannot be said to be erroneous. According to the evidence of claimants' own witness, PW 2, Ham Saran, the bus HRM 7094 has at the time of accident, coming from Delhi side and was proceeding towards Mathura. The deceased was going on his motor cycle in the opposite direction from Mathura. While the two vehicles came close to each other, suddenly the deceased turned his motor cycle on his right side and the bus collided against the back portion of the motor cycle. It is also not disputed that at that place there was no regular turning and the deceased wanted to go on a cachucha road on the right side of the high way. PW 3, further stated that the accident took place just as the deceased took a turn to cards the right. Now on a high-v\ay if a person suddenly takes a turn on the right side while another vehicle which is approaching him is coming specially when there is no regular turning at that place, it can not be doubted that the person taking such a turn has been extremely negligent. The these circumstances even if there was some negligence on the part of the bus driver in not trying to stop the bus from a close distance, it cannot be said that the proportion of negligence of the bus driver and the decease, as assessed by the Claims Tribunal, suffers from any error. We accordingly agree with the Tribunal that the claimants were entitled to only 1/luth of the total compensation to which they might have been entitled to, had there been absolutely no negligence on the part of the deceased. 9. We are, however, unable to agree with the Tribunal that merely because one of the claimants was herself an earning member, the total amount of compensation assessed in this regard should be reduced by a sum of Rs. 10,000/- What has to be assessed in such a case is the amount of damage sustained by the claimants and not what their earning capacity is. The reduction of the total amount of compensation from Rs. 60,000/- or Rs. 10,000/- What has to be assessed in such a case is the amount of damage sustained by the claimants and not what their earning capacity is. The reduction of the total amount of compensation from Rs. 60,000/- or Rs. 50,000/- by the Tribunal is therefore not justified and the claimants were entitled to receive l/10th of Rs. 60,000/- i.e. Rs. 60 0/- as compensation. 10. So far as the question of awarding of interest is concerned, Section 110CC lays down that where any Court or Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Court or Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation, simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim, as it may specify in this behalf. 11. In the instant case we see no reason why the claimants should not be awarded interest on the amount to which they had become entitled to from the date they actually put in their claim petition. In addition to the sum of Rs.6.000/- which has been awarded to the claimants, we also award them simple I interest @ 10% p.a. on the said sum of Rs. 6,000/- from the date the claim petition was presented and till the date the entire amount along with the interest is paid to the claimants. 12. In the result we allow this appeal in part. We modify the award to the extent that the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants is increased from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 6000/-. In addition, the Respondents are also liable to pay interest on the said amount from date of the Claim petition to the date of payment. In view of the fact that no one has appeared to oppose this appeal on behalf of the Respondents, we direct the parties to bear their own costs of this appeal.