This appeal is preferred by the insurance company challenging the award of the Tribunal whereunder the liability to pay the compensation has been foisted on them.

2. The facts in brief which led to this appeal are as under:

R. Thippeswamy, the claimant was working as a cleaner in the passenger bus bearing Registration No. KA 16 A 8889 owned by the third respondent, Smt. Geetha. On 14-6-2000 in the course of his employment as a cleaner, he got down from the bus and was regulating the movement of the people in front of the bus. At that time the driver of the bus suddenly moved the bus resulting in running of the left front wheel of the bus over the right foot of the claimant. Therefore, he preferred the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming a compensation of Rs. 3,60,000/-. To the said claim petition he made the owner and the driver of the bus and the insurance company which had insured the bus as party-respondents. The owner and the driver did not contest the matter. They were placed ex parte. Therefore, the insurance company filed a detailed written statement contesting the claim on all grounds. However, they did not dispute the insuranc