A passenger who rests his elbow on the window sill of a bus is not guilty of contributory negligence if the accident is caused by the negligence of the driver.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, sharanpur, dated 10-2-1978, dismissing the appellants claim petition filed under Section 110-A of the M. V. Act.

( 2 ) RAMESH Kumar Awasthi appellant was travelling by a bus bearing No. USK 9724 on 14-9-1975 from Meerut to Rishikesh. When the bus reached a place between Police Station manglaur and Muzaffarnagar another bus bearing No. UST 9091, coming from the opposite direction and proceeding to Meerut, grazed against the body of the bus in which the appellant was sitting. By the impact of the grazing of the bus the window glass was smashed and the appellants right hand was cut and slit from above the right elbow joint. He was removed to the military Hospital, Roorkee for treatment. Both the vehicles belonged to the U. P. State Road transport Corporation. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 110-A of the M. V. Act claiming a sum of Rs. 1,30,037. 50 paise as compensation and damages. The U. P. State Road transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, resisted the appellants claim on the ground that the drivers of the two vehicles were not guilty of any rash and negligent driving, instead the appellant received injuries and lost his limb on account of his gross negligence in keeping a part of his arm outside the window while the vehicle was in motion. The appellant himself contributed to the accident and as such he was not entitled to any compensation or damages.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal, on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following three issues :-1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries due to negligent and rash driving of motor vehicles nos. USK 9724 and UST 9091, as alleged? 2. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries for the reasons of his own negligence? If so, its effect? 3. To what amount, if any, is the petitioner entitled as compensation? on issues Nos. 1 and 2 the Tribunal recorded finding that the drivers of the two buses were not negligent, instead the accident occurred on account of the appellants own negligence as he was protruding a part of his right hand outside the moving vehicle. On issue No. 3, the Tribunal held that the appellant was not entitled to any amount of compensation, but in the alternative it recorded a finding that the appellant had incurred a sum of Rs. 3000/- towards medical expenses and he was entitled to that amount. He would have been further entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/for the injury and mental torture and physical pain suffered by him, if the drivers of the two buses were found negligent. Thus in all the appellant would have been entitled to a sum of Rs. 28,000/-as damages, but since the negligence of the drivers of the buses was not established the tribunal dismissed the Claim Petition in its entirety. Hence this appeal by the claimant.

( 4 ) SRI Vineet Saran, learned counsel for the appellant, placed his case in a succinct manner. He urged that the accident occurred on a plain road in the country-side where there was no heavy traffic and as such the drivers of both the buses were guilty of gross negligence. The driver of a bus carrying passengers is under a duty to drive the vehicle in a manner as to ensure safety of the passengers. Both the drivers violated this salutary rule in not maintaining sufficient distance between the two buses at the time they crossed each other. The appellant was not guilty of contributory negligence by merely placing his hand on the window sill of the bus, as it is common practice for passengers, who get seats besides the window to rest their hand on the window sill. The appellants act in placing his hand on the window sill was quite natural, it cannot be said to be an act of negligence. The Tribunal committed error in rejecting the appellants claim. Sri S. K. Sharma, counsel for the respondent, U. P. State Road Transport corporation, urged that a person who himself does not care for his own safety is not entitl