G. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed under Section 110-D, Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the insurer, Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. , Jhansi, challenging the award dated 16. 11. 1981 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal) in Claim Petition No. 46 of 1978 by which the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were awarded Rs. 48,000/- as compensation. The claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have also filed a cross-objection for enhancement of the compensation awarded to them. ( 2 ) SARMAN and Ramiya, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, filed claim petition before the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Jhansi, on 31. 8. 1977 claiming Rs. 1,04,900/- as compensation on account of death of their son, Daya Ram. The case of the claimants, in brief, was that their son, Daya Ram, aged about 18 years, was working as a beldar and was earning Rs. 150/- per month. At about 8. 00 a. m. on 2. 1. 1975, he was going from his house in village Attonda to Sipri Bazar. When he was passing over Pahuj Bridge, Lahargarh, he was hit by truck No. USG 5446 due to which he received serious injuries resulting in his death. The truck was owned by Hari Singh Yadav and was being driven by Mahendra Singh. The truck was insured with Oriental Fire and General Ins. Co. Ltd. , Jhansi. At the time of accident, the truck was being driven rashly and negligently and was on wrong side of the road. The case of the claimants further was that deceased Daya Ram was sole earning member of the family and he was not only supporting his parents (claimants)but also his two younger brothers, namely, Bhajan and Asha Ram. The entire family had been thrown to starvation on account of death of Daya Ram. The claimants accordingly prayed that a sum of Rs. 1,04,900/- should be awarded as compensation. ( 3 ) THE respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who are the owner and driver of the truck No. USG 5446, filed a joint written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition. It was pleaded that the claim petition was time-barred and the deceased was himself guilty of contributory negligence at the time of accident and truck was not being driven rashly and negligently. 3 and 4, who are the owner and driver of the truck No. USG 5446, filed a joint written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition. It was pleaded that the claim petition was time-barred and the deceased was himself guilty of contributory negligence at the time of accident and truck was not being driven rashly and negligently. It was further pleaded that brothers were not dependent upon his income and the compensation amount claimed was highly excessive. The Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. filed a separate written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition. The case of the insurer, in brief, was that the claim petition was barred by time; that the deceased dashed against the rear wheel of the truck due to his own fault and negligence; that the truck was not being driven rashly or negligently; that brothers of the deceased were not dependent upon his income and were not entitled to claim compensation and that the compensation amount claimed was highly excessive. ( 4 ) BEFORE the Tribunal, the claimants examined three witnesses, namely: PW 1 Dhani Ram, PW 2 lakhan and PW 3 Ramiya. The owner and driver of the vehicle as well as insurance company did not examine any witness. The Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by the driver and that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The Tribunal further held that the claimants had suffered loss of Rs. 15,000/- towards financial support which would have been provided by the deceased, a sum of rs. 8,000/- towards loss of happiness to the parents and brothers on account of death of Daya ram and further a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards the loss suffered by minor brothers as they had to discontinue their education. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 48,000/- as compensation to the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ( 5 ) AT the outset, it may be mentioned that the award of the Tribunal has been challenged only by the insurance company and the owner and driver of the vehicle have not filed any appeal against the award. The claimants have also filed cross-objection for enhancement of the compensation awarded to them. ( 6 ) MR. ( 5 ) AT the outset, it may be mentioned that the award of the Tribunal has been challenged only by the insurance company and the owner and driver of the vehicle have not filed any appeal against the award. The claimants have also filed cross-objection for enhancement of the compensation awarded to them. ( 6 ) MR. A. B. Saran, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company, has urged that the claim petition had be ;n filed long after expiry of period of limitation and, therefore, it was liable to be dismissed on this count alone. It is true that though the accident took place on 2. 1. 1975, but the claim petition was filed after nearly two years and 8 months, i. e. , on 31. 8. 1977. The claimants had given an application for condonation of delay and the ground given by them was that they were absolutely illiterate old persons belonging to a village and they were advised by some person to request the Collector to pay them compensation and they moved several applications to him in this regard. Subsequently, the Collector told them that the claim petition can be filed before the District Judge and thereafter, they filed a petition before the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The claimants also filed copies of three applications which they had moved before Collector, Jhansi. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and copies of the applications moved before the Collector and also the fact that the claimants were illiterate old persons belonging to a village allowed the application under section 5 of Limitation Act and condoned the delay by his order dated 15. 7. 1978. This order dated 15. 7. 1978 was not challenged either by the insurance company or by the owner or driver of the vehicle. We have also examined the contents of the application moved by the claimants for condonation of delay and the reasons given in support thereof. We are of the opinion that sufficient ground was made out for condonation of delay. The order dated 15. 7. 1978 passed by the Tribunal condoning the delay is a perfectly correct order on the facts and circumstances of the case and we do not see any reason to interfere with the same. The delay was rightly condoned by the Tribunal. The order dated 15. 7. 1978 passed by the Tribunal condoning the delay is a perfectly correct order on the facts and circumstances of the case and we do not see any reason to interfere with the same. The delay was rightly condoned by the Tribunal. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the claim petition was time-barred is, therefore, liable to be rejected. ( 7 ) IT was next contended by the learned Counsel for the insurance company that the deceased came under the rear wheel of the truck due to which the accident took place. This showed that the accident took place due to his own fault and negligence and, therefore, the claimants were not entitled to get any compensation. To appreciate the argument of the learned Counsel, the evidence adduced by the parties has to be examined. PW 1 Dhani Ram has stated that he was working as chaukidar at the petrol pump and his duty hours were from 8. 00 p. m. to 8. 30 a. m. in the morning. He saw the accident from petrol pump which is at a distance of 40 paces from the place of occurrence. Daya Ram was going towards Sipri Bazar from his village towards left side of the road. The truck came at a very fast speed and on the wrong side of the road and dashed against Daya Ram. The driver did not blow the horn. He has categorically stated that in case the truck had not been driven at a very high speed, the accident would not have taken place. The statement of PW 1 Dhani Ram shows that the accident took place on account of fact that truck was driven at a very high speed and on the wrong side of the road without giving any horn. It is thus clear that truck was being driven rashly and negligently. The learned Counsel for the insurance company has not been able to point out any reason why the statement of PW 1 should not be believed. The Tribunal has discarded the statement of Dhani Ram only on the ground that he had no talks with the claimants before the death of Daya Ram and, therefore, they had no occasion to know that he had actually seen the occurrence. The Tribunal has discarded the statement of Dhani Ram only on the ground that he had no talks with the claimants before the death of Daya Ram and, therefore, they had no occasion to know that he had actually seen the occurrence. We are of the opinion that reasoning given by the Tribunal for discarding the statement of PW 1 is absolutely wrong. The evidence on the record shows that he was working as chaukidar at petrol pump which is at a distance of 40 paces from the site and that he was present at the petrol pump at the time of accident. He is, therefore, a most natural witness of the occurrence. The claim petition has been filed long time after death of Daya Ram and during this period, the claimants would have easily come to know about those persons including Dhani Ram who had seen the occurrence. Mere fact that claimants or the deceased had no talks with this witness prior to this accident was no ground for discarding his testimony. We have carefully perused the statement of Dhani Ram and we do not find any infirmity to discard the same. ( 8 ) PW 2 Lakhan who was going to the same place for work where the deceased Daya Ram was going also stated that truck came from front side and dashed against Daya Ram due to which he died. He has categorically stated that truck was being driven at a very fast speed of 60-65 km. per hour and the driver did not blow any horn. He has further stated that front wheel of the truck passed over the body of Daya Ram. He has also stated that the driver did not stop after the accident and the vehicle was being driven at a fast speed. Learned counsel for the insurance company has not been able to point out any infirmity in the statement of this witness. It may be pointed out that no evidence in rebuttal has been adduced by the insurer or owner of the vehicle. Though a plea was taken in the written statement filed by insurance company that the accident took place from the rear wheel of the truck, but no evidence has been adduced in support thereof. Thus, the plea of the insurance company cannot be accepted for want of evidence. Though a plea was taken in the written statement filed by insurance company that the accident took place from the rear wheel of the truck, but no evidence has been adduced in support thereof. Thus, the plea of the insurance company cannot be accepted for want of evidence. The evidence on record conclusively establishes that the vehicle was being driven at a very high speed and on the wrong side of the road and no horn was blown by the driver of truck. The deceased was going on the left side of road at the time of accident. We, accordingly, hold that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by the driver and not on account of any fault of the deceased himself. In fact, the driver is entirely responsible for the accident. ( 9 ) NOW, we have to consider the question of the amount of compensation which is to be awarded to the claimants. The learned Counsel for the insurer has submitted that the amount awarded is excessive, whereas learned Counsel for the claimants has submitted that the amount should be enhanced. PW 1 Dhani Ram has stated that the deceased was working as beldar and he was a young and healthy person and he would have become karigar (mason) after some time. He has also stated that Bhajan Lal and Asha Ram, younger brothers of deceased, were initially studying in school, but they had to stop their education and that the parents of the deceased were not earning anything. PW 2 Lakhan is also resident of the same village as that of the deceased. He has stated that though Daya Ram was earning Rs. 5/- per day, but he was very good worker and never used to absent. He was a healthy person. He has further stated that he was also working as beldar and, therefore, knew about the deceased. PW 3 Ramiya, mother of the deceased, has stated that Daya Ram was aged about 18 years and had studied up to class V and had good health. She has further stated that wages of Daya Ram would have increased to Rs. 15/- per day. It may be noticed that the statement of this witness was recorded on 1. 9. 1981. She has further stated that wages of Daya Ram would have increased to Rs. 15/- per day. It may be noticed that the statement of this witness was recorded on 1. 9. 1981. She has also stated that when Daya Ram was alive, her one son was studying in class HI and another son was studying in class II. After the death of Daya Ram, his two younger brothers had to discontinue their studies as Daya Ram was the sole earning member of the family. She has further stated that her husband Sarman was not in a position to work anything on account of bad health and she had very bad eyesight and the family was facing acute financial difficulties on account of death of daya Ram. The statements of aforesaid three witnesses show that Daya Ram was aged about 18 years and was a healthy person at the time of his death. He had studied up to class V. He was working as beldar, but as he was a very good worker, he was likely to become a karigar (mason)after some time. His income would have increased with passage of time even if he continued to work as beldar and it would have further increased in case he had become a karigar. In the claim petition, which was filed on 31. 8. 1977, income of deceased was mentioned as Rs. 150/- per month. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that wages of labourers or masons have increased with the passage of time. It is a common knowledge that these days, ordinary labourer is charging Rs. 30/- per day, whereas average mason is charging about Rs. 60/- to 70/- per day. Thus, if Daya Ram had been alive today, in all probability, he would have become a karigar and would have been earning at least Rs. 70/- per day. ( 10 ) IT has been held in Radha Agarwal v. State of U. P. 1984 ACJ 121 (Allahabad) and in national Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpa Kunwar 1983 ACJ 629 (Allahabad), that Claim Tribunal while assessing the compensation can take into consideration the increments in salary and also chances of future promotions which would have been earned by the deceased. Ltd. v. Pushpa Kunwar 1983 ACJ 629 (Allahabad), that Claim Tribunal while assessing the compensation can take into consideration the increments in salary and also chances of future promotions which would have been earned by the deceased. ( 11 ) THE Tribunal has held that the deceased would have supported his parents for at least 15 years more in case he had not met untimely death. The age of Sarman is mentioned as 55 years and that of Ramiya as 50 years in the claim petition. That means that at the time of accident, their age was about 52/ 1/2 and 47/ 1/2 years respectively. Assuming that parents of the deceased would have lived up to the age of 65 years, it means that the deceased would have given financial support to his father for another 12/ 1/2 years and to his mother for 17/ 1/2 years. The age of younger brothers Bhajan and Asha Ram is given as 9 years and 7 years respectively in the claim petition and thus they were aged about 6/ 1/2 years and 4/ 1/2 years at the time of accident. Thus, the deceased would have given financial support to his two younger brothers for another 12 years and 14 years respectively. Taking into consideration the increments in the income of the deceased Daya Ram with the passage of time and also on his becoming karigar (mason), we assess that the parents and brothers have suffered a loss of Rs. 40,000 on account of untimely death of Daya Ram. ( 12 ) THE Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 8,000/- towards the loss of happiness of parents and brothers of deceased. Learned counsel for the insurer has not challenged the findings of the tribunal on this point and we affirm the same. ( 13 ) THE statement of Ramiya shows that younger brothers of deceased were studying in class II and Class III respectively at the time of accident and they had to discontinue their studies on account of death of Daya Ram who was the sole earning member of the family. Daya Ram was giving financial assistance to his brothers to enable them to continue their studies. Due to the death of Daya Ram, they had to stop their studies, both due to financial stringency and also to earn some money for the family. Daya Ram was giving financial assistance to his brothers to enable them to continue their studies. Due to the death of Daya Ram, they had to stop their studies, both due to financial stringency and also to earn some money for the family. Thus, the career of minor brothers has been seriously affected on account of death of Daya Ram. It is difficult to assess in precise term the loss suffered by them on account of the fact that they had to leave their studies. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000/- on this account. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we think that this amount should be enhanced to Rs. 30,000. The contention of learned counsel for the insurance company that no compensation can be awarded under this head as the claimants have already been awarded compensation due to the loss of financial assistance on account of death of Daya Ram, cannot be accepted. The minor brothers of Daya Ram have suffered in two ways, viz. , loss of monetary assistance due to the death of Daya Ram and also due to setback to their career suffered on account of stoppage of their education. Thus, in our opinion, the minor brothers of the deceased are entitled to compensation under both the heads. ( 14 ) THUS, we are of the opinion that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 78,000/- as compensation on account of death of their son Daya Ram. The claimants would be entitled to simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent on the aforesaid amount from the date of presentation of claim petition, i. e. , 31. 7. 1977 in accordance with Section 110-CC of Motor Vehicles Act. All the opposite parties to the claim petition, namely, Hari Singh Yadav, Mahendra Singh and insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants. In view of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company would be liable to satisfy the award given in favour of the claimants. ( 15 ) THE appeal filed by Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is allowed. In view of Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company would be liable to satisfy the award given in favour of the claimants. ( 15 ) THE appeal filed by Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is allowed. The claimants are awarded a sum of Rs, 78,000/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of presentation of the claim petition. The opposite parties to the claim petition, namely, the appellant Oriental Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 will be jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid amount to the claimants. The Oriental Fire and genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. will be liable to satisfy the award given as against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The interim order, if any, is vacated. The claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to their costs. .