A person attempting to board a moving bus through the exit is not a passenger, and the insurance company's liability is not restricted to Rs. 5,000/- if the injured person is not a passenger.

V. Ratnam, J.

1. This is an appeal at the instance of the owner of a bus against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Coimbatore, in M.C.O.P. No. 110 of 1980. On 2.4.1980 at about 4.15 p.m., the first respondent herein was waiting at the Veerapandi bus-stop and the bus plying on route 32E belonging to the appellant came there, but stopped at a distance of about 40 feet from the bus-stop. Many persons desiring to catch that bus ran towards the same and the first respondent also attempted to get into that bus through the exit in the front portion of the bus. When he had placed one foot on the footboard, the driver started driving the bus, as a result of which the first respondent fell down and sustained some injuries. According to the first respondent, the accident took place only on account of the careless and negligent driving of the bus by the driver. The injuries sustained by the respondent necessitated his taking treatment for about three months between 2.4.1980 and 7.7.1980 and even thereafter. The first respondent did not become all right and continued to suffer from the injuries and had suffered permanent disability as well in that he was unable to walk freely. Claiming that on the average he was earning Rs. 1,300/- a month by executing job works for Lakshmi Machine Works and that he had been deprived of his earnings for the period during which he was unable to work and that he had also undergone pain and suffering and had spent considerable amount for his treatment etc., the first respondent prayed that compensation in a sum of Rs. 30,000/- should be awarded to him.

2. In the counter filed by the third respondent insurance company, which was adopted by the appellant and the second respondent, they contended that the bus was started only after ascertaining whether all the passengers had got out and other passengers had got in and that the first respondent, who was standing outside smoking, suddenly rushed towards the bus and attempted to board it through the exit in the front and, therefore, the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the first respondent. Contributory negligence was also attributed by them to the first respondent as the cause of the accident. The amount of compensation claimed was also characterised to be excessive. It was also pleaded that the first respondent, as a passenger in the bus, could at best claim only Rs. 5,000/- by way of compensation from the third respondent herein.

3. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the first respondent, Exhs. A-1 to A-16 were filed and the first respondent and the two doctors who treated him were examined as PWs 1 to 3, while on behalf of the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Exhs. B-1 to B-3 were filed and the second respondent gave evidence as RW 1. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the first respondent attempted to board the bus through the front exit and the driver of the bus as well as the first respondent were both negligent and that had caused the accident. Considering the question of compensation, the Tribunal determined the income of the first respondent at Rs. 800/- per mensem and on that footing, it computed the loss of earnings as well as the compensation under the different heads of claim made by the first respondent and fixed the quantum of compensation payable to the first respondent at Rs. 20,000/-. Holding that the first respondent was a passenger in the bus, the Tribunal apportioned the liability between the third respondent and the appellant and directed that the appellant and the third respondent should pay Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively to the first respondent herein. It is the correctness of the apportionment so made and the fastening of liability of Rs. 15,000/- on the appellant, that is questioned in this appeal. The first respondent, in his memorandum of cross-objections, has prayed for an enhancement of the compensation from Rs