K.Kannan, J.

1. The appeal is at the instance of the owner who unsuccessfully resisted a case for claim of compensation. The claimants were representatives of the deceased who had seated himself on the mudguard of the tractor and came under the wheels when he got tossed out in an uneven bumpy road. The version of the driver was that he was not aware of the deceased sitting on the mudguard, but he must have climbed behind without his knowledge and fallen down on a bumpy road as the tractor was moving. The Tribunal, however, rejected this plea and held that by the fact that he got crushed between the mudguard and the tyre, he must have been seated on the mudguard and found the negligence as established. Learned counsel for the appellant would state that rashness and negligence cannot be attributed in a situation like this and principally, if the condition of the road was such that a person who was seated on the mudguard falls down, no negligence could be attributed to the driver.

2. These are hard situations where it will be impermissible to allow for principles like volunte non fit injuria by stating that the deceased must have known that it was dangerous to travel on a mudg