JUDGMENT : H.L. Agrawal, C.J. and B.K. Behera, J. - These two appeals under the Letters Patent jurisdiction of this Court, which arise out of a common judgment, were heard together and are being disposed of by this order. 2. These appeals arise out of a claim under the Motor Vehicle Act and raise a small but interesting question as to whether the deceased, who suffered death at the end of his journey by the bus in question, would still be held to be a 'passenger' travelling in the bus. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows : On 20-8-1973 deceased P. Papayya was travelling in bus No. A.P.S. 1909 belonging to appellant No. 1 from Berhampur to Parlakhemundi. While the bus had reached near the village of the said passenger and he was getting down from the bus after it had stopped, according to the case of the claimants, namely, the widow of the deceased and her minor children, the driver of the vehicle suddenly started the bus without giving any indication. As a result, the deceased fell down from the bus and was run over suffering multiple injuries which ultimately resulted in his death on the same day. The legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim application claiming compensation of Rs. 20,000/- againt the owner of the bus, namely, appellant No. 1, and the Insurance Company. The Claims Tribunal, on the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that (i) Papayya met with his death in the accident While getting down from the bus in question, and (ii) the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. Accordingly, he determined a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and directed the Insurance Company to pay the entire amount. 4. Both the insurer and the owner of the vehicle filed appeals in this Court and the claimants filed a cross-objection claiming higher compensation. The learned Judge allowed the cross-objection and raised the amount of compensation from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. On a reference to Section 95(2)(b) (ii)(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as it stood then, he allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company fixing its liability to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- only and transferring the liability of Rs. 10,000/- allowed by him, in all Rs. 15,000/- to the owner of the bus. 5. Mr. 20,000/-. On a reference to Section 95(2)(b) (ii)(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as it stood then, he allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company fixing its liability to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- only and transferring the liability of Rs. 10,000/- allowed by him, in all Rs. 15,000/- to the owner of the bus. 5. Mr. Ramdas, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that inasmuch as the passenger Papayya met with the accident after he had already got down from the bus at the end of the journey, he ceased to be a passenger of the bus and, therefore, the Insurance Company, as a comprehensive insurer of the bus in question, was liable payment of the entire compensation, i. e., Rs. 20,000/- awarded by the appellate Court and its liability cannot be said to be limited by the provisions of the Section 95(2)(b)(ii)(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on a decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Southern Motors, Madurai v. C. Sivajothiasmmal and Ors. (AIR 1982 Madras 219). In that case, the passenger had got down from the bus while still in course of his journey. When the bus started, while attempting to board the moving bus, he fell down and sustained injuries resulting in his death. Compensation was allowed, and a question arose as to whether the insurer was liable for the entire compensation or was protected u/s 95(2)(b). On the evidence however, it was found that the deceased-passenger had not secured entry into the bus for further journey. On this finding, it was held that the person who did not get entry into the bus and failed in his attempt to get into the same cannot be said to be, in any sense a passenger of the bus. Therefore, the deceased was not a passenger at the time of the accident and so the liability of the insurer could not be fastened for Rs. 5,000/- under the said provisions of the Act. 6. Coming to the facts of the present case, the findings as mentioned above show that Papayya met with the accident while getting down from the bus in question. This finding, although attempted to be assailed, has not been differed by the learned single Judge. 5,000/- under the said provisions of the Act. 6. Coming to the facts of the present case, the findings as mentioned above show that Papayya met with the accident while getting down from the bus in question. This finding, although attempted to be assailed, has not been differed by the learned single Judge. In the Letters Patent jurisdiction, it is not possible to re-appraise the evidence, which the learned counsel for the appellants wants us to do. On the finding that Papayya was still in the process of getting down from the bus in question, we are not inclined to take the view that he had ceased to be a passenger of the bus. The learned counsel also did not submit that the deceased had ceased to be a passenger in course of getting down from the bus. In order that the deceased should be deemed to have ceased to be a passenger of the bus, he should have completely got down from the bus and come on the ground having no contact with the bus. Public vehicles taking passengers for hire have to ensure their getting down from the bus at the places of their destination. Although the journey's end might have Been reached and, the bus might have stopped, if some accident happens while a passenger is in the process of getting down from the vehicle, he does not cease to be a passenger till the time he completely dissociates from the vehicle. Once we come to this conclusion, the submission of Mr. Ramdas that on account of the comprehensive insurance of the bus, the liability for payment of the compensation would lie squarely on the shoulder of the company and that the Insurance Company must indemnify the appellant, is entirely misconceived and cannot be accepted. 7. In the result, the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. However, there would be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed