JUDGMENT I. Panduranga Rao, J. 1. The first respondent in this appeal filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- on the ground that when her husband was travelling on the carrier of the cycle on 2.10.1982 at about 8.00 p.m. the bus belonging to the appellant and driven by the second respondent came from behind and dashed against the cycle, resulting in his death. Basing on the evidence adduced before it, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 55,000/-. 2. Alleging that the said award is highly excessive, the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation has preferred the appeal. The claimant (the first respondent) has filed cross-objection on the ground that the compensation of Rs. 55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is low. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant attacked the award of the Claims Tribunal on three grounds, the first submission made by him is that the cyclist had suddenly swerved the cycle to a side, which was the cause for the accident. His second contention is that there is no satisfactory proof of the age of the deceased as 40 years at the time of the accident and, therefore, computing compensation on the basis that age of the deceased was 40 years at the time of accident is illegal. The third objection is that excepting the ipsi dixit of the claimant, there is no other evidence to show that the income of the deceased was Rs. 800/ - per month, basing on which the Claims Tribunal assessed the dependency of the claimant at Rs. 500/- per month. 4. As regards the first contention, excepting the vague suggestion made to the claimant during her cross-examination that cyclist had suddenly turned the cycle to a side, there is no other evidence adduced in support of that suggestion. The driver of the vehicle, who is under the employment of the appellant was not examined to contradict the statement of the claimant, who examined herself as P.W. 1 and deposed that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the second respondent. The evidence of the claimant is further corroborated by P.W. 3, who is an eye-witness for the occurrence. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the second respondent should be confirmed. 5. The evidence of the claimant is further corroborated by P.W. 3, who is an eye-witness for the occurrence. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the second respondent should be confirmed. 5. In support of the second contention that there is no evidence to justify the age of the deceased as 40 years at the time of the accident, the learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the claimant has given her age as about 38 years in her claim petition and on that basis, age of the deceased could not have been 40 years. The learned Counsel argued that normally there should have been a difference of 7 or 8 years between the age of the husband and wife and, therefore, fixing the age of the deceased at 40 years is irregular. The-learned Counsel for the first respondent met that contention by stating that in the evidence given by the claimant in the year 1985, she stated that her age was 35 years and that statement was not challenged in the cross-examination. He therefore urged that the evidence of P.W. 1 regarding her age stands unrebutted and on that basis her age at the time of the accident should have been 32 years. The difference in age between the deceased and the claimant is about 8 years and, therefore, the evidence of P.W. 1 that the age of the deceased, her husband, was 40 years at the time of the accident can be accepted. 6. In support of the third contention, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that excepting the ipsi dixit of the claimant that her husband was earning Rs. 800/- to Rs. 1000/- per month, there is no other evidence to corroborate her statement. The evidence of P.W. 1 is to the effect that her husband was doing carpentry work and had two assistants. The statement of P.W. 1 about the income of her husband is not disputed in the cross-examination nor is it controverted by any other evidence. Therefore, the finding of the Claims Tribunal assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 800/- per month cannot be said to be exorbitant. 7. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal at Rs. Therefore, the finding of the Claims Tribunal assessing the income of the deceased at Rs. 800/- per month cannot be said to be exorbitant. 7. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal at Rs. 55,000/- cannot be said to be illegal so as to warrant interference in the appeal. 8. With regard to the cross-objections the learned Counsel for the first respondent/cross-objector argued that the approach of the learned Claims Tribunal in fixing the compensation at Rs. 55,000/-, basing on judgment in Srinivasa Roadways, Madurai v. Saroja and Ors. 1975 A.C.J. 265 is highly improper because in the said case, the evidence was that the husband of the claimant was drawing salary of Rs. 540/- per month. From out of that amount some amount should have been deducted towards the amounts spent on the deceased himself and there is no finding as to the contribution made by him to the family from out of the income of Rs. 540/- per month. In the present case, the Claims Tribunal having deducted Rs. 300/- towards the probable amount spent by the deceased on him and having fixed the dependency of the family on Rs. 500/- per month, has committed an error in blindly following the aforesaid decision in fixing the compensation at Rs. 55,000/-. 9. It is brought out in evidence that only dependency of the deceased being his wife so, the deduction of Rs. 300/- towards the expenses of the deceased may not be correct. When the family consisted of only the deceased and his wife, the Claims Tribunal should reasonably have assessed the dependency of the claimant at half the income, namely Rs. 400/- per month. 10. The evidence of the claimant shows that her mother-in-law, aged 72 years, was alive at the time of the accident. It shows that the longivity of the family of the deceased is high. Therefore, computing the compensation at 20 years, it works out to Rs. 96,000/-. Since the claimant is not awarded compensation on other grounds, such as loss of consortium, mental agony, etc., I feel that no deduction should be made on the ground of making lump-sum payment. It shows that the longivity of the family of the deceased is high. Therefore, computing the compensation at 20 years, it works out to Rs. 96,000/-. Since the claimant is not awarded compensation on other grounds, such as loss of consortium, mental agony, etc., I feel that no deduction should be made on the ground of making lump-sum payment. Since the accident has taken place in the year 1982 when the rate of interest was not high, I direct that the appellant shall pay interest at 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of application till the date of payment. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the cross-objections are allowed in part to the extent indicated above. Each party shall bear their own costs in the appeal as well as cross-objections.