The main legal point established is the apportionment of negligence in cases of accidents involving passengers traveling on the roof of a public vehicle, based on the awareness of the driver and conductor about the passengers on the roof.

( 1 ) MOTOR Accidents Claims tribunal, Bidar has by the order impugned in this appeal dismissed M. V. C. No. 114 of 1995 filed by the appellant for payment of compensation for the death of Shivaraj matapathy in a motor accident. The present appeal filed by the claimants assails the correctness of the said judgment and order.

( 2 ) THE appellants happen to be the widow, mother and minor children of late shivaraj Matapathy who filed M. V. C. No. 114 of 1995 before the Tribunal for the payment of compensation for the death of shivaraj Matapathy. The case of claimants as set out in the claim petition was that shivaraj Matapathy was travelling to village Khashampur, Aurad Taluk from Bidar in connection with a certain cultural programme to be conducted by him. He boarded a K. S. R. T. C. bus at Bidar bus stand at about 6. 30 p. m. on 17. 1. 1992. Since the bus was full of passengers, the deceased was asked to travel on the roof of the bus. The deceased accordingly climbed to the roof of the bus and started his journey. At one of the stations on the way, the deceased had according to claimants come down from the top of the bus to request the conductor of the bus to allow him to sit inside the bus as some of the passengers had alighted. This request was, according to the claimants, turned down by the conductor who asked him to resume his place on the top of the bus. The deceased accordingly got back on to the roof of the bus to continue his journey. While the bus was nearing Boral bus stand, the deceased, it appears, was hit by the branches of a roadside tree. The claimants alleged that the negligence of driver in driving the vehicle had resulted in injuries to the deceased, which eventually resulted in his death in government Hospital, Bidar on 19. 1. 1992. Compensation assessed at Rs. 3,50,000 with costs and interest was accordingly claimed by the appellants from the State corporation.

( 3 ) THE Corporation opposed the claim. In the objections filed on its behalf, it was, inter alia, alleged that respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i. e. , the driver and the conductor of the bus were unaware of the presence of the deceased on the roof of the bus. It was specifically denied that the conductor had allowed the deceased to sit on the top of the bus in question. According to the Corporation, the deceased, had on his own accord, climbed to the top of the bus from the rear and sustained some minor injuries when he fell down from the same. Corporation was not according to objection responsible for the accident in any manner nor were the claimants-appellants herein entitled to payment of any compensation.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal framed four issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and allowed the parties an opportunity to lead evidence in support of their respective versions. Out of the claimants appellant No. 1 Shivleela who happens to be the widow of the deceased stepped into the witnessbox apart from two other witnesses, namely, Jaishanker PW 2 and Umadevi PW 3. In rebuttal, the Corporation examined the driver of the offending bus.

( 5 ) UPON appreciation of the oral evidence and the documents produced by the parties in support of their respective cases, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition in terms of the impugned judgment. The tribunal held that the deceased Shivaraj matapathy was not travelling on the roof of the bus as per the direction of the driver and conductor of the vehicle as alleged and that the injuries resulting in his death were not caused because of any rash or negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The present appeal, as noticed earlier, assails the correctness of the said findings and seeks award of a suitable amount of compensation.

( 6 ) WE have heard Mr. Ashok R. Kalyan shetty, counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. D. Vijayakumar, counsel for the respondent Corporation. We have also been taken through the record of the case.

( 7 ) TWO questions primarily fall for our consideration. The first rela