JUDGMENT : R.A. Jahagirdar, J. 1. This is an appeal preferred by the Municipal Corporation of Pune against the award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in Claim Application No. 187 of 1980. The respondent was the claimant and had claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000 on the ground of the negligence of the employees of the Pune Municipal Transport. This was on the ground that while she was getting down from the bus, the conductor of the bus started the bus without waiting for her to get down. As a result of this she fell down from the bus and was caught behind the rear wheel of the bus sustaining ghastly injuries. She had to undergo five operations and was hospitalised for nearly four months. 2. The defence of the Municipal Corporation was that the respondent herself was negligent inasmuch as she was trying to get down from the bus without waiting for the bus to come to a halt. 3. The learned Member of the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence which was led on behalf of both the parties and has come to a conclusion, which I find completely satisfactory. The claimant has stated that before she could get down from the bus the conductor gave a bell and the driver started the bus. This gave a heavy jerk as a result of which she fell down on the road. The evidence on behalf of the Municipal Corporation was hopelessly unsatisfactory. The conductor in fact has admitted that the claimant was the only passenger who was to get down at the Dapodi Bus Stop. He also admitted that he was busy punching the tickets of the other passengers. It is, therefore, crystal clear that the conductor never bothered to look as to whether the claimant passenger had in fact got down. 4. The learned Advocate General who appears in support of the appeal has made available for my perusal copies of the depositions given in the Court below He has contended that looking to the probabilities of the case and the nature of the accident, the case of the Municipal Corporation must commend itself to the Court. In suggesting this the learned Advocate General thought that unless the claimant had herself tried to alight from the bus before it stopped she could not have been run over by the rear wheel of the vehicle. In suggesting this the learned Advocate General thought that unless the claimant had herself tried to alight from the bus before it stopped she could not have been run over by the rear wheel of the vehicle. In my opinion, this is a total misreading of the evidence and the probabilities arising from the same. Whether a person gets down from a moving vehicle or whether the vehicle starts before the passenger gets down, the nature of the injury will not be different. Moreover, in the instant case there is nothing to rebut the sworn testimony given by the claimant. Coupled with this are the admissions of the bus conductor. 5. I am satisfied that the evidence has been properly appreciated by the Tribunal. We are coming to a stage where judicial notice will have to be taken of the utter negligence of the conductors and rash actions of the drivers of public vehicles. However, in this case it is not necessary to do so because on the evidence it is more than satisfactorily established that the conductor of the bus was fully responsible for the accident. I commend the manner in which the learned Member of the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence. It is properly done, especially looking to the manner in which public buses are run in metropolitan cities at least in Maharashtra. 6. Instead of preferring such an appeal the Municipal Corporation would have been well advised to pay the amount to the claimant straightaway and to take action against its own delinquent employees.