A person getting down from a bus is not a passenger, but a third party, and the insurance company is liable to pay the entire compensation awarded to such a person in case of an accident.

Padmini Jesudurai, J.

1. The injured victim of a motor accident, who has been awarded compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, has filed the present appeal contending that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate.

2. Facts briefly are: The appellant, while he was getting down from a passenger bus bearing registration No. MDH 4589 belonging to the third respondent and insured with the second respondent, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the first respondent, fell down and sustained fracture of fibula as well as fracture of 2 metatarsus bones in the left leg. He filed M.O.P. No. 201 of 1981 under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge-II), Chengalpattu, claiming a total compensation of Rs. 25,000/-.

3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 contended that it was the appellant who jumped out of the bus before the bus had been brought to a halt and that, therefore, the accident was due to the rash and negligent act of the appellant in jumping out of the bus and was not due to any rashness or negligence on the part of the first respondent in moving the vehicle before the appellant could get down. The claim was also said to be excessive. The second respondent, the insurance company, resisted the claim contending that since the appellant was a passenger in the bus at the time of the accident, its liability was limited to only Rs. 5,000/-.

4. Before the Tribunal, the appellant examined himself as PW1 and examined the Medical Officer, who treated him, as PW 2. Exhs. A-1 to A-3 being the admission and discharge certificates from the hospital were marked on the side of the appellant. On the side of the respondents, A Sampath, Checking Inspector of the vehicle, was examined as RW1 and Exhs. B-1 and B-2 were marked.

5. On the above evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent act of the first respondent in moving the vehicle before the appellant could safely land on the ground. Compensation was assessed at Rs. 4,000/- and an award was passed in favour of the appellant for the above amount, with a direction to the second respondent to deposit the amount. Contending that the amount is grossly inadequate, the injured victim has filed the present appeal.

6. Mr. AN. Viswanatha Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the Tribunal had not awarded any compensation for pain and suffering and the amount awarded for permanent disablement was grossly inadequate and no compensation had also been awarded for the actual expenses that the appellant had incurred in the prolonged treatment for fractures.

7. For contra, Mr. K. Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the second respondent, contended that the compensation awarded was reasonable and that since the appellant was a passenger at the time of the accident and since Exh. B-2, policy of insurance, showed that its liability was only Rs. 5,000/-for a passenger, the second respondent would not be liable for higher compensation, even if the court felt that enhancement was called for.

8. The following points arise for determination:

(1) Is the compensation awarded by the Tribunal just?

(2) If the compensation is to be enhanced, what is the liability of the second respondent?

Point No. 1

9. Exh. A-1 shows that the appellant has sustained a fracture of the fibula and also fracture of the 3rd and 4th metatarsus bones on the left leg. Fracture of bones would require prolonged treatment and such treatment when it relates to the fracture in the lower limbs, would immobilise the victim causing great pain and suffering and also compel him to undergo expenditure for transport, extra nourishment and special care. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under any head and has merely stated that considering the occupation of the appellant, his period of treatment in the hospital for about three months, the disabilities spoken to b