Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This First Appeal From Order has been filed challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 16.11.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/VI Additional District Judge, Fatehpur in Claim Petition No. 01 of 1980 whereby the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 90,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from 11.7.1995 in the following terms :

ORDER

“ The claim petition on behalf of only Smt. Haseena Begum claimant No. 1 is decreed for compensation of Rs. 90,000/- ( Rs.Ninety thousand only) against the opposite parties jointly and severally. Interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 11.7.1995 shall also be payable on the said amount by the opposite parties jointly and severally. Since the claimant is an illiterate widow, the amount as awarded shall be paid through FDR in any Nationalized Bank and the interest accrued thereon shall be payable from time to time to the claimant Smt. Haseena Begum. In case of urgency, the claimant Smt. Haseena Begum may withdraw the required amount showing genuine act.”

3. It appears from the record that the deceased Irrafil was travelling from Fetahpur to Ghazipur on the left side of the roof of bus No. UPW 2830,which met with an accident on 22.9.1989 on account of dashing of the vehicle coming from opposite side against a Jamun tree. The deceased at about 12.15 on that fatal day had sustained injuries to which he succumbed in the hospital.

4. The claim petition was filed by his widow, daughter and sisters claiming compensation of Rs. 3,12,000/- on the ground that the deceased was an expert tailor and was working in a Tailoring shop at Kanpur at the time of the accident.

5. The appellant Insurance Company not only denied the factum of accident but also claimed that the vehicle in question was being driven against the terms and conditions of Insurance policy.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation whatsoever to claimant No. 1, Haseena Begum on account of the reason that the deceased was not a passenger of the bus as he was travelling on the top of the roof of the bus. He stated that the Tribunal has given positive finding to the effect that the deceased met with the accident in which the negligence of the deceased was contributed as the accident was caused due to violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance policy by the onwer/driver and conductor of the vehicle, the appellant Insurance Company cannot be held to be liable for payment of the compensation in respect of the deceased.

7. The findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal have been assailed on the ground that it is a case of contributory negligence and also that the deceased was sitting on the roof of the bus as such it cannot be said that he was a valid passenger. Therefore, the dependents of the deceased are not entitled to receive compensation amounting to Rs. 80,000/- as well as expenses of Rs. 10,000/- on other accounts.

8. According to him, no risk is covered by the Insurance Company for a person sitting on the roof of the bus as he is not a valid passenger and compensation, if any, was liable to be paid by the owner, driver and conductor of the bus.

9. He has further argued that the Claims Tribunal has given a positive finding of contributory negligence as such the compensation awarded is liable to be set aside.

10. At the time admission of the appeal following interim order was passed on 8.3.1996.

“Seen the office objection. The learned counsel agrees to file type copy of the judgment.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The liability by the Insurance Company has been challenged in this appeal. There has been a deposit of Rs. 25,000/- with the Registrar of this Court as required under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The appeal stands admitted. The sum of Rs. 25,000/- deposited here remitte