ORDER
K. Govindarajan, J.
1. The Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal questioning the correctness of the award passed by the tribunal.
2. In the accident held on 18.9.1995 the claimant sustained injuries and so the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed claiming compensation of Rs. 1,25,000. The tribunal fixing the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, awarded compensation of Rs. 1,04,300. Challenging the same, the Transport Corporation has filed the above appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the tribunal is not correct in fixing the negligence only on the driver of the bus. When the claimant travelled in the bus, the bus was stopped near to SIPCOT in Guindy Estate road, but it is not, the bus stop. At that timer two persons got down and according to the claimant, when he tried to get down, the driver took the bus suddenly and thereby he fell, dawn and the back wheel of the bus ran on his right leg. It is the case of the appellant that when the claimant travelled in the footboard due to missing of the grip he fell dawn. The tribunal found that the driver has moved the bus suddenly even without waiting far the petitioner stepping down from the bus and so accident occurred.
4. From the evidence and discussion of the tribunal, it is dear that the bus was stopped in a place, where there is no bus stop. We are not having any material to see for what purpose the bus was stopped in the said place. But in the said place, taking advantage of the stoppage of the bus, the petitioner tried to step down from the bus. It is not the case of the claimant that he informed the driver or conductor that he wanted to step down from the bus. Merely because some other persons got down from the bus, it cannot be said that he is having every right to get down from the bus on the basis that the bus was stopped in a place where there is no bus stop. Had information was given to the driver or conductor that he wants to get down, the driver could have moved the bus after the petitioner got down from the bus. The passengers are not expected to get down the bus other than the bus stop. It cannot be expected that the driver and conductor knew about the claimant’s action to step down from the bus. So the driver moved the bus, as he could not expect anybody to step down from the bus, which is not stopped in the bus stop. So it cannot be said that the negligence can be attributed only on the driver of the bus.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that he relies on the Judgment of this Court in M. Jaganathan v. Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd., 1999 ACJ 366. In the said case, the negligence was fixed only on the driver of the bus though the claimant tried to get down from the bus and fell down and left front wheel of the bus ran over him. In the said case, the bus was stopped at the place, where there is no bus stop but conductor himself asked the passenger, whose destination was next stop, to get down at the said place. Having said so the bus was moved when the claimant was getting down from the bus and the Division Bench held that the negligence is only an the part of the driver. The said judgment of the Division Bench was confirmed by the Apex Court in Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. v. M. Jaganathan, 2001 (1) CTC 49. The Supreme Court has taken into consideration of the fact that the conductor told the passengers who were to go to Parrys Corner to get down here itself, where the bus was stopped though there was no bus stop. Admittedly in the said case, passengers got down and without even having a signal from the conductor, the driver started to move the bus. So the Supreme Court found that there is a lack of co-ordination between the conductor and the driver. The said judgment of the Division Bench which was confirmed by the Supreme Court cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.
6. In the present case, as stated already, the bus was stationed at a place where there was no bus stop and no evidence is available to show that the driver or the conductor permitted the passengers to get down or the claimant has informed the conductor or driver that he was going to get down and inspite of that the driver moved the bus. In view of the above said facts, the negligence has to be fixed on the claimant and the driver of the bus equally. There is no argument made with respect to the quantum. So, we are not interfering with the quantum fixed by the tribunal.
7. In view of the above said discussion, the claimant is entitled to get the compensation only 50% of the amount awarded by the tribunal. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the balance amount.
8. With the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs.