JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - This appeal under section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred by Smt. Dangri, wife of Rajdeo, and others, for compensation on account of death of her husband Rajdeo on 19-9-1972 at about 1.30 P.M. Her case was that when Rajdeo was going on cycle from C.M.P. Degree College to the Civil Lines he was dashed by the driver of Bus No. USS-761, as a result of which he died instantaneously. The claim of the appellant is that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently. She claimed along with her in laws a sum of Rs. 2,80,000 as compensation. 2. The defence of Respondent No 2, who was the owner of the bus was that the accident took place due to negligence of Rajdeo and not on account of rash driving of the driver of the bus. 3. Before we take up the issues, we may point out that the father of the deceased Raj Deo was employed as teacher, and, therefore, neither he nor his wife was entitled to get compensation on account of death of the deceased. The other appellants were his brother and sisters. The liability of maintaining them was on Sahdeo Prasad, father of the deceased. It may be noted here that Rejdeo was, admittedly a student of B.A. Part-I at the time of the accident. He was not making any earning and therefore, there could be no question of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 being dependent on him. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed several issues. Out of them, Issues Nos. 1 and 2, which are material for our purposes, are as follows : (1) Whether the accident as alleged in the claim petition occurred ? (2) Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Motor Vehicle No. USS-761 ? 5. The appellant No. 1 produced oral evidence for showing that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Bus No. TjSS-761 by its driver. The court below accepted the evidence of the appellant and gave a finding that the accident occurred due to rashness of the driver of the said bus. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal, that on account of the driver losing control over the vehicle Rajdeo, was crushed. 6. The court below accepted the evidence of the appellant and gave a finding that the accident occurred due to rashness of the driver of the said bus. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal, that on account of the driver losing control over the vehicle Rajdeo, was crushed. 6. Next comes the question of compensation. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,000 by holding that since the deceased Rajdeo was a student of B. A. Part-I the family members could not be given higher amount. The approach of the Tribunal is fallacious. Had Rajdeo not been killed, he could be excepted to make earnings by getting employment or through other means. The court below has wrongly that mere expectancy that the deceased Rajdeo would have got employment, was irrelevant. Chances of the deceased getting employment could not be ruled out. That was a relevant consideration. 7. The deceased left behind his widow Smt. Dangri. Mental shock suffered by her should have been taken into account while awarding compensation. The court below ignored this completely. 8. In the circumstances, we consider that the appropriate amount to be awarded to the appellant No. 1 should be Rs. 25,000. The other appellants, arrayed as appellants Nos. 2 to 7, would not be entitled to get any compensation inasmuch as none of them was dependent on the deceased. 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds in part and is partly allowed. The judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 7-9-1976 is modihed and the appellant No. 1 Smt. Dangri is awarded Rs. 25,000 as compensation with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application for compensation till the date of payment. No costs.