JUDGMENT : K.C. Agrawal, J.—This is an appeal u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act preferred against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge), Fatehpur, awarding Rs. 30,000/- with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of decree as compensation to the respondents. Out of these Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- had to be paid to the widow and her daughter and Rs. 10,000/- to the mother, minor sister and minor brother of the deceased Ram Pratap. 2. Ram Pratap, who had passed B.A. and was doing B.T.C., was going by a cycle on 4th March 1977 at about 3 p.m. when all of a sudden he was crushed by the vehicle UTC 9630 and died in the hospital. On his death a claim petition was filed by the widow of the deceased, his daughter and other relations. The claim was for Rs. 60,000/- on the assertion that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the vehicle aforesaid and that the claimants/respondents had suffered to the extent of Rs. 60,000/- on account of the untimely death of Ram Pratap. 3. The claim petition was contested and one of the grounds taken was that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased and as such the claimants were not entitled to any compensation or in the alternative the amount, which had been claimed in the petition. The Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver? (2) Whether the deceased contributed to the accident? (3) Whether the mother, brother or sister are entitled to get compensation? (4) To what amount of compensation, if any, are the petitioners entitled? 4. On the controversy arising between the parties, both the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The claimants produced witnesses to establish that the accident occurred due to the rashness of the driver of the vehicle aforesaid. Witnesses were produced to show source of income and dependents of the family on the income on the deceased. 4A. The Tribunal held on issue No. 2 that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased Ram Pratap and that the driver of the Vehicle was not solely and exclusively liable for the same. Witnesses were produced to show source of income and dependents of the family on the income on the deceased. 4A. The Tribunal held on issue No. 2 that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the deceased Ram Pratap and that the driver of the Vehicle was not solely and exclusively liable for the same. On issue No. 4, which was on the question of quantum of damages, the court below held that the proper amount to be assessed by way of compensation could be Rs. 30,000/- and out of Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 20,000/- had to be paid to the widow of the deceased and her daughter and the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- to other relations, who were the claimants in the claim petition. 5. Challenging the finding, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that when the Tribunal held, on appraisal of evidence, that the deceased contributed to the accident, it was wrong on its part not to have apportioned the liability and awarded the compensation of Rs. 30,000/- To us it appears that what did the Tribunal do that it had in its mind, while awarding compensation, the contributory negligence of the deceased also. It is not correct, as was submitted, that the contributory negligence should have been apportioned in the ratio of fifty: fifty and that the deceased should have been held responsible fifty per cent in the instant case. There is no rigid formula about the same and there can be none in such a matter. Decision of each case depends on its own case. In the instant case, we are not even prepared to uphold the finding of the Tribunal that the deceased contributed to the accident. What appears to us is that had the driver been careful, the accident could be adverted totally and that it is due to his recklessness that the accident occurred. The accident occurred during day hours at 3 P.M. when everything was visible and that the driver could stop the vehicle. However, without going into that question it appears to us that the liability, if any, of the deceased could not be more than twenty per cent and, as such, the apportionment could be only at the ratio of eighty : twenty. 6. However, without going into that question it appears to us that the liability, if any, of the deceased could not be more than twenty per cent and, as such, the apportionment could be only at the ratio of eighty : twenty. 6. So far as the quantum is concerned, to us it appears that the Tribunal took the contribution of the deceased into account and determined the compensation at Rs. 30,000/- which is upheld. The compensation awarded is much too less than what the circumstances of the present case require. The deceased was twenty-three years old and was, although atuitor at the time of this death, but could be prosperous by getting a regular employment by becoming a teacher. This aspect of the matter if would have been taken into account, the Tribunal must have held that the compensation awardable was more than Rs. 30,000/-. Taking this fact into account, as well as the arguments of the appellant's counsel, we do not consider the present as a fit case for holding that the compensation is unjustified. 7. In the result, we dismiss the appeal with costs.