Wad ( 1 ) THE accident took place on 56. 1971 in which one Dalip Singh was killed. He has left behind his widow and three children who were all minor at that time. The accident was caused by bus No. DLP 1248. the contention of the claimants was that then the deceased was driving his Vicky No. DLM 5508 on the Najafgarh Road near Kirti Nagar bus stop, bus No. DLP 1248 came from behind and knocked the deceased. It was alleged that the bus was not in the proper control and there was failure on the part of the driver to watch the vehicle going in front of him. On the other hand, the respondents submit that the accident took place because of the negligence of the deceased who had started overtaking the bus from the left side in contravention of the traffic rules. ( 2 ) I have been taken through the evidence of the eye-witnesses, photographs, site plan and the evidence of the doctor. I hold that it is not a case of complete negligence of the bus in question. This is a clear case of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. ( 3 ) THE next question is as to what compensation the claimants are entitled to. The claimants had claimed Rs. 1,00,000. 00 as compensation in their claim petition. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that having considered the income of the deceased which was Rs. 274. 40. 00 he was contributing a sum of Rs. 200. 00 per month to his family and on this basis for a period of 261/2 years the compensation payable to the claimants was Rs. 63,600. 00. The deceased was 31 years old at the time of the accident. Having held so, the Tribunal has made the deductions amounting to Rs. 43. 589. 00 on account of the family pension which the widow was getting as also the insurance and from the sale of some property. ( 4 ) I find that the Tribunal s approach in arriving at the dependency of the family and multiplier was correct and the claimants are entitled to the compensation on that basis. However, it should be kept in mind that this is a case of contributory negligence. Besides this, I do not find any justification for the deductions that are made by the Tribunal. However, it should be kept in mind that this is a case of contributory negligence. Besides this, I do not find any justification for the deductions that are made by the Tribunal. ( 5 ) SINCE it is a case of contributory negligence, the claimants would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 31. 800. 00. They would also be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of the application till the date of payment. C. M. No. 3027 of 1985 ( 6 ) THIS is an application made on behalf of the claimants for increasing the original claim from Rs. 1. 00 lac to Rs. 2,50,000. 00. C. M. No. 4470 of 1986 is another application claiming certain additional benefits in terms of compensation on the basis of the Pay Commission s Report. The approach in all the accident claim cases is to see that the claimants get reasonable compensation so as to rehabilitate them in life. In this case the compensation and the interest allowed to the claimants, in my opinion, is sufficient to rehabilitate them in life. The aforesaid two applications are, therefore, rejected. The M. C. D. will draw up a cheque for the amount of compensation and the interest deposit the same with the Registrar of court within two months from today. The Registrar will, after issuing notices to the claimants, disburse the amount to them. I counsel for the M. C. D. submits that pursuant to the Tribunal s award, they had deposited sum of Rs. 17. 000. 00 in the Tribunal and the interest at the rate of 9 per cent should he awarded only till that date. Normally which, the order is passed the court orders that the claimants should be entitled to withdraw the amount on giving the security/surety. However, no similar order was passed in this case. If the claimants are in a position to give the security/surety natu rally they would withdraw the amount and receive the benefit in time but they will not get any amount in a case where due to poverty they are not able to give any security or surety. It is true that the public authority deposited the awarded sum in the Tribunal. Each case is to be decided on its own merits. It is true that the public authority deposited the awarded sum in the Tribunal. Each case is to be decided on its own merits. I do not accept the contention of the counsel for the respondents in this regard. The counsel for the M. C. D. respondent further submits that at the relevant time the D. T. C was functioning as the wing of the M. C. D. and hence in F. A. O. No. 133 of 1976 the M. C. D. is shown as the respondent while in F. A. O. No. 153 of 1976 the D. T. C. is shown as the appellant. It is, therefore, directed that it is the D. T. C. now which is liable to pay the compensation and the interest within the time indicated above. In other words the directions regarding the payment are against the D. T. C.