The central legal point established is the interpretation of the term 'passenger' under Section 95(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which influenced the limitation of the Insurance Company's liability.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is taken up for hearing at the admission stage itself by consent of both the learned counsel for the parlies.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , presented under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and award made by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.

( 3 ) THE only ground urged by the Appellant-Insurance Company is that the claimant was a passenger and, therefore, the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs. 15,000/- and even so, the Tribunal has fixed the liability to pay entire compensation of Rs. 28,000/-together with interest on the Insurance Company.

( 4 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are these: The stage carriage bearing Registration No. MYA5553 was plying from Magadi to Bangalore on 17-4-1985. The claimant and her mother were passengers in the said vehicle. There was an accident at about /-30 p. m. After P. W. 1 Kali Bai, mother of the claimant, alighted from the bus and the claimant was in Ihe process of alighting from the bus, the bus suddenly moved. She fell down and the left portion of back mudguard of the bus hit her right leg and she susta ined injuries lo her right leg. She was removed to Magadi Government Hospital, thereafter to Victoria Hospital, bangalore and then to Sanjaya Gandhi Hospital, Bangalore, where she was admitted as an inpalient. She remained as an inpalient from 18-4-1985 till June 1985. She suffered permanent disability of the right leg and it had almost become useless. Her ieg was also shortened on account of Ihe injuries sustained by her. Claim petition was presented by the claimant for the inj uries sustained by her.

( 5 ) THE first question for consideration by the Tribunal was whether the appellant proved that she sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the bus No. MYA 5553 by its driver on 17-4-1975? The issue was answered in the affirmative.

( 6 ) THE next question for consideration by the Tribunal was about the quantum of compensation to be awarded. Having regard to the injuries sustained and Ihe permanent disability suffered by the claimant, the Tribunal quantified the amount at rs. 38. 000/- together with interest at 9%. The Tribunal fixed the liability both on the owner of the vehicle and ihe Insurance Company. The Insurance Company thereafter made an application requesting the Tribunal to modify the award and fix the liability on the Insurance Company only to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- and the rest on the owner of the vehicle on the ground lhat Ihe liability of the Insurance Company under the policy was limited to Rs. 15,0007- per passenger. This application was rejected. Aggrieved by the award, the appellant has presented this appeal.

( 7 ) THE short question that arises foe cons id era lion in this appeal is whether the claimant was a passenger or a third party. There is no dispute if the claimant was a third party the liability of the Insurance Company is unlimited. If on the other hand, the claimant was only a passenger, then ibe liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs. 15,000/ -.

( 8 ) WE have gone through the records of the Tribunal. In the cla im petiiion at pageno. 4 it is stated thus:"that on 17-4-1985, the injured had come from Magadi to vengalappanahalli in bus bearing Registration No. MYA 5553 at /-30 p. m. as she wanted to get down at Vengalappanahalli and accordingly the bus was stopped at Vengalappanahalli, the injured petitioner while in the process of getting down from the bus from the front door the bus all of a sudden moved and the petitioner was kicked off and she tell down lhat the left portion of back mudguard of the bos came' in contacl with the right leg of the injured and the muscle was pulled off and the petitioner also sustained other bodily injuries. . . "a reading of the above averment which is clear and unambiguous, shows that the claim ant sustained injuries when she was in the process o