JUDGMENT In view of the ground disclosed in the petition u/s 5 of the Limitation Act the delay of 20 days in filing the appeal is condoned. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants on admission. The deceased was son of he claimants 2 and 3, husband of claimant No. 1 and also father of other claimants. He was 45 years old when he died in a vehicular accident. The truck of the appellant was moving from one side and the deceased was coming from front side on the bicycle. The truck and bicycle collided and the deceased expired due to the injuries suffered. Learned counsel for the appellant urges that another truck was also parked on the road and when the cyclist tried to pass by the side of the truck, he was not seen by the driver of the truck from the front side. So the argument is that it is not purely negligence of the driver of the appellant's truck. The second argument is that the dependency had been assessed at Rs. 400/- p.m. i.e. 4,800/- p.a. and on multiplied by 12, it reached to the figure of Rs. 57,600/- as compensation for loss of dependency. Rs. 5,000/- have been allowed for loss of consortium to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- for loss of father to the others. Thus the total figure of Rs. 64,600/- has been reached as compensation payable. Learned counsel argued that witness Shobhabai has stated that the husband sometimes used to pay to her Rs. 400/- p.m. and sometimes used to Rs. 200/- p.m. and at the most average of the two figures be taken. It is also in evidence that .the family has a agricultural land of about 30 acres and the deceased was doing some carpentary work. Considering these aspects and the labour required to be put in agricultural work, his age being about 45 years and also he being the father of 4 children, the Tribunal has in fact taken a very low estimate of the benefits to the family by the labour and earning of the deceased. This Court is of the view that the Government should have no grievance against such assessment. So far as the negligence is concerned, the case is coveted by rule of res ipsa loquitur. The appeal has no arguable point and it is dismissed. This Court is of the view that the Government should have no grievance against such assessment. So far as the negligence is concerned, the case is coveted by rule of res ipsa loquitur. The appeal has no arguable point and it is dismissed. However I remark that the interest on the compensation shall be calculated from the date of claim petition on full amount and from the date of payment of Rs. 33,000/- on the balance amount. No orders as to costs.