JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - This appeal has been filed by the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation against the judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dated 12-8-1978, allowing the Accident Claim Case No. 3 of 1972 for a sum of Rs. 84,000 as compensation in favour of the claimants. The connected First Appeal from Order No. 70 of 1979 was filed by the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation against the judgment of the" Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, given in Accident Claim Case No. 26 of 1971. Both of these cases arose out of the same accident in which two persons-Hari Shanker Tiwari alias Prem Chand alias Daddu and Ramesh Kumar Bajpai died as a result of the accident on 27-7-1971 with U. P. State Roadways bus No. UPI 5207 near Jhabra culvert of village Fihain between Akbarpur and Roora, P. S. Akbarpur of Kanpur district. The deceased Hari Shanker Tiwari was a pillion rider of scooter which was being driven by Ramesh Kumar Bajpai. In the accident, which took place at about 5.30 p. m., Hari Shanker Tiwari died instantaneously at the spot whereas Ramesh Kumar Bajpai was taken to Rura Dispensary and, thereafter, to U. H. M. Hospital, Kanpur, where he succumbed to his injuries on 31-7-1971. 2. Accident Claim Case No. 26 of 1971 was filed by Smt. Sarla Devi, widow and Shushma daughter, of the deceased Hari Shanker Tiwari. The father of the deceased Hari Shanker Tiwari as well as the mother of the deceased were also dependent. The father Laxmi Chand was 55 years of age and the mother Smt. Sonkali was 50 years of age, 3. An amount of Rs. 75,000 had been claimed as compensation on various counts in this accident claim. 4. Originally, the claim was filed against the U. P. State, but subsequently, U. P. State Road Transport Corporation was impleaded as a party. 5. The claim was contested by the U. P. S. R. T. C. on the ground that the accident took place at 6.30 p. m. and not at 8.30 p. m. and it was due to the negligent driving of the scooter by Ramesh Kumar Bajpai of which pillion rider was Hari Shanker Tiwari. 6. Several issues were framed and a number of witnesses were examined by the claimants as well as by the U. P. S. R. T. C. 7. 6. Several issues were framed and a number of witnesses were examined by the claimants as well as by the U. P. S. R. T. C. 7. In accident claim case No. 26 of 1971, Rs. 45,000 were awarded in favour of Smt. Sarla Devi widow and her minor daughter Km. Sushma, against the State of U. P. and U. P. S. R. T. C. as well as the driver. 8. In claim petition No. 3 of 1972, which had been filed by the wife of deceased Ramesh Kumar Bajpai, a sum of Rs. 1,25,000 had been claimed. He died leaving behind his wife Smt. Geeta Devi and two daughters, Km. Amita and Km. Sarita. 9. This claim was also contested by the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation on the same grounds on which the accident claim No. 26 of 1971 was contested. 10. In accident claim case No. 3 of 1972, the eye-witnesses produced on behalf of the claimant, was Raja Ram PW 3 while the U. P. S. R. T. C. examined the bus driver Sidheshwar Misra DW 3 as well as Ram Chandra Dwivedi, who was a passenger of the bus. 11. The question in both the accident claim case was whether the accident occurred on account of the negligent driving of the scooter by the driver Ramesh Kumar Bajpai or due to the bus having been driven at a high speed. Raja Ram PW 3 was cross-examined at length but nothing could be found to render his testimony incredible. He deposed that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver which was running at a very high speed and further that the scooter was being run on its left side of the road by Ramesh Kumar Bajpai. The statement of Raja Ram PW 3 was supported by the site plan Ex. A-3, prepared by the Traffic Superintendent, wherein the accident is mentioned to have taken place on the scooterists left hand end of the road and wrong side of the bus driver. Sidheshwar Misra (DW 3), the driver, was disbelieved by the Claims Tribunal on the finding that he deposed about the accident having taken place in one manner at one place of the statement and, thereafter, conveniently changed the same. Sidheshwar Misra (DW 3), the driver, was disbelieved by the Claims Tribunal on the finding that he deposed about the accident having taken place in one manner at one place of the statement and, thereafter, conveniently changed the same. He admitted that at a distance of 50 paces of the bus, the scooterist had started driving on the correct side. Even if this statement was believed, there was no reason for him to have crushed the scooterist. It is found from the site plan that even after the collision, the bus could stop at a distance of 150 ft. and that too in a ditch after falling down a branch of the tree. This indicates that the bus was out of control of its driver, because of his negligence the accident occurred and two persons Ramesh Kumar Bajpai and Hari Shanker Tiwari died. 12. The learned Counsel Sri S. K. Sharma, appearing in F. A. F. O. No. 70 of 1979 arising out of accident claim case No. 26 of 1971, urged that when the monthly income of the deceased Hari Shanker Tiwari was Rs. 150, the court below should have found that he must have been spending at least Rs. 100 on himself. The submission is a guess having no basis or" support. It could be said that lower the income more is the contribution to the family. The court below took into account this aspect of the matter and found that Smt. Sarla Devi was entitled to get Rs. 45,000 as compensation for her and her daughter. 13. The Accident Claims Tribunal framed issue No. 4, which was to the following effect : "Whether Smt. Sonkali Devi and Laxmi Chandra, the parents of the deceased were dependent on the deceased at the time of the accident ?" 14. This issue was decided in the negative by the Tribunal by finding that neither the father nor the mother entered into the witness box to support their claim. The Tribunal found that the parents were not dependant on the income of the deceased. 15. So far as appeal No. 71 of 1979 is concerned, that arises out of the accident claim case No. 3 of 1972. In this case, the finding was the same as in accident claim case No. 26 of 1971. The Tribunal found that the accident took place on account of negligent driving of the bus driver. 15. So far as appeal No. 71 of 1979 is concerned, that arises out of the accident claim case No. 3 of 1972. In this case, the finding was the same as in accident claim case No. 26 of 1971. The Tribunal found that the accident took place on account of negligent driving of the bus driver. We are of the view that the Tribunal rightly held the U. P. S. R. T. C. to be liable for the payment of the compensation. 16. Counsel urged that the court below should have deducted ?rd on account of lump sum payment and not l/6th. It was a matter of discretion and as the discretion was not exercised wrongly or perversely, we are not prepared to accept the same. 17. So far as the interest awarded being 6% per annum, the demand for more made in the cross-objection does not appeal to us to be reasonable. Interest was at the discretion of the Tribunal. No case for enhancing the same is made out. Furthermore, the claim for more compensation than the one awarded is not supported by the evidence on record. The Tribunal found that on account of the death of Ramesh Kumar Bajpai, the family suffered a loss of Rs. 200 per month and as his span of life could be estimated at 40 years, the total compensation of Rs. 84,000 awarded to his wife is not inadequate. 18. Consequently, we dismiss both the appeals and the cross-objection. No order as to costs.