The liability of the insurance company for an individual bus passenger is limited to the maximum statutory limit of Rs. 5,000 under Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

G. N. Ray, J: This appeal is directed against Order dated 29th July, 1981 paned by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hooghly In Motor Accident Claim Case No. 21 of 1977. National Insurance Company Limited, an objector to the said claim case, is the appellant in the instant appeal and the said claim was initiated at the instance of the claimant petitioner respondent Sm Tarak Bala Das and the respondent No 2, Sri Debabrata Saha, was also impleaded as one of the objectors in the said claim case.

2. The calc of the claimant respondent No. 1 is inter alia that Naba Kumar Das and his brother reached the bus stop of route No.8 near the junction of Rukeshpur Road and Asam Road for boarding a bus of route No 8. When the bus of the said route WGB 2163 reached the said crossing the said Naba Kumar Des put his feet on the front footboard of the bus to get inside the said bus, but the bus suddenly started moving at a great speed and in a negligent manner As a result, the said Naba Kumar Das immediately Cell down on the road and was run over by the said bus. The said Naba Kumar Das died instantaneously due to rash and neg1igeot driving of the said vehicle. The objector being the mother of the said deceased had claimed a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh as general and special damages and also interest and costs. It is the case of the said objector that Naba Kumar Das had a very good physique and sound heath and he was a bachelor and at the relevant time he had been earning monthly Income of Rs. 500/- The occupation of the deceased was stated to be cultivation and agricultural farming supervision and seasonal agricultural business in onion, jute, potato etc. The objector No. 1 who is the respondent No.2 in the instant appeal was the owner of the said vehicle and he filed a written objection inter alia disputing the claim of the claimant petitioner. A separate written objection was also filed by objector No 2 viz the appellant Insurance Company and the claim was also disputed by toe Said objector. It was contended by the objectors that the victim had died due to his own laches and negligence and the vehicle was not driven in a negligent manner. It was contended that the victim had sufficient opportunity to board the bus but instead of boarding the bus in a proper manner the victim in a negligent manner attempted to get into the moving bus through its front gate and without giving any prior indication of boarding the bus. The victim having lost his grip over the rod of the said bus, fell down on the road and was thus run over. The alleged income of the victim was also disputed. It appears that P.W. 2, Renupada Das, an eye-witness was examined on behalf of the claimant petitioner The said Renupada Das has deposed to the effect that ho had seen the accident and the deceased was run over by the bus because the bus started moving in a negligent manner just when Naba Kumar Das was about to board the bus and place his feet to the footboard. The said witness categorically denied the suggestion that the death was due to any negligenee on the part of the victim and he has stated that such death was due to the fault of the driver of the bus.

3. The learned Judge has relied on the evidence of this witness and accepted the case of the claimant petitioner that the said accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle it may be noted in this connection that the evidence of the said eye-witness was also corroborated by the evidence of the brother of the deceased who was also present at the time of the accident. The learned Judge also came to the finding that the victim was 26 years' old at the time or his .death and he possessed a good health. He also accepted the case of the claimant petitioner that before his death, he was ill business and he used to earn Rs 400/- per month. The learned Judge was of the view that the victim was expected to live for another 32 years if he had not died due to the said accident and he had assessed a sum of