The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of contributory negligence, liability of the insurance company, and adequacy of compensation for the claimant's injuries.

K.J. Joseph, J.

1. The claimant in O. P. (M. V.) No. 255/84 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam is the appellant. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, viz. KRE 982. The 2nd respondent was the driver of the said bus and the 3rd respondent is the Insurance Company with whom the respondent owner had entered into a contract of insurance in respect of his vehicle bearing registration no. KRE 982.

2. It is the case of the appellant that he sustained injuries at the age of 26 on 3-12-1982 at 12.00 Noon. He was a door checker in the stage carriage bearing registration No. KRE 982. When the bus driven by the 2nd respondent was passing a bridge at Tripunithura on 3-12-1982 he sustained injuries. According to the appellant, the side of the bus brushed aside of an electric post. Hearing the sound, the appellant who was standing on the footboard peeped out. Then his head stuck against the post and thereby he sustained severe head injuries. The appellant was immediately removed to the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam where he was treated as an in - patient and thereafter, he continued his treatment as an out -patient. According to him, the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent. He, therefore, claimed a total amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of compensation from the respondents.

3. On notice, the driver of the vehicle viz. the 2nd respondent in the claim petition contended that he was not negligent. According to him, the accident was caused due to the negligence of the appellant himself. He put his head outside while he was standing on the footboard, for which the driver is not responsible is the substance of the contention raised by the 2nd respondent driver. He further contended in the written statement that the electric post was 1 1/2 ft. away from the bus and the injuries alleged to have been sustained was only due to the fact the appellant put his head outside the bus which resulted in causing injury to the appellant. He disputed the quantum claimed in the petition. According to him, the entire claim is exaggerated. He also disputed the permanent disability claimed by the appellant.

4. Third respondent, viz. insurance company also made similar contentions that had taken by the 2nd respondent, the driver. It was also contended by the insurance company that the maximum liability of the Company, if any, is for an amount of Rs. 37, 800/- as calculated under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The insurance company admitted the policy.

5. For sustaining the claim, the claimant had examined three witnesses on his side. He himself had given evidence as PW 1. PW 2 was the doctor who treated the appellant in the Medical Trust Hospital. To substantiate his contentions, he had produced and proved Exts. A1 to A5 before the Tribunal. On behalf of the respondents, the insurance policy issued by the 3rd respondent was produced and marked as Ext. B1.

6. On consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, the learned Tribunal accepted the case of the appellant that he sustained injuries in the accident on 3-12-1982 while travelling in the bus driven by the 2nd respondent bearing registration No. KRE 982. PW 2 was the conductor of the bus. According to him, the appellant put his head outside which resulted in causing injuries on the appellant's head. According to PW 2, when the bus slanded towards left, the appellant who was standing on the footboard fell on the door and the head hit against the electric post. The learned Tribunal considered the evidence of the injured, the appellant herein, and the evidence adduced of PW 2 came to the conclusion that the appellant was travelling on the footboard of the bus and while so, he put his head outside which resulted in causing of the injuries on his head and therefore, the appellant also is negligent. In the light of the evidence adduced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the