A. P. RAVANI, M. B. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) RESPONDENT-ORIGINAL claimant met with an automobile evident on feb. 19 1983 while boarding a public but beginning Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. He fell down from the bus the bus had started all of a sudden with a jerk. On account of the accidental injuries he was admitted in hospital as indoor patient. The injury resulted into permanent partial functional disability of left lower limb the extent of 22%. The Doctor who has examined the injured has also opined that the injured will have difficulty in walking and running and will be difficult for him to sit cross-legged and in squatting position. ( 2 ) THE respondent-original applicant claimed an amount of Rs. 1 31 280 as and by way of compensation. The appellants heroin i. e. the Commissioner of Jamnagar Municipal Corporation and the Driver of the bus and the Insurance Company (respondent No. 2 herein) resisted the claim of the applicant on various grounds. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the bus was negligent on driving the vehicle. On overall appreciation of evident and having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case The Tribunal held that the applicant-claimant was entitled to receive Rs. 43 300 from the appellants and from respondent No. 2 heroin i. e. the Insurance Company jointly and severally. However the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the extent of Rs. 15 0 only in as much as the Tribunal held that the applicant-claimant was a passenger of the bus and in case of such passenger the liability of the Insurance Company did not exceed the limit mentioned in the Insurance Policy in question which in this case is Rs. 15 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the injured cannot be said to be a passenger and therefore the Tribunal erred in holding that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the extent of Rs. 15 0 only. in his submission the insurance policy covered the liability in respect of third parties and the injured was not a passenger but he was a third party. 15 0 only. in his submission the insurance policy covered the liability in respect of third parties and the injured was not a passenger but he was a third party. The injured has not boarded the bus only one of his legs was on the foot-board and another leg was on the earth or it was at the most hanging. He had not even purchased the ticket. In his submission at the most injured was s trespasser. It is contended that a person can be said to be a passenger only if he is a bons fide passenger who has lawfully entered the vehicle and who has purchased the ticket. ( 4 ) IN support of this contention the learned Counsel for two appellants has relied upon a Full Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Sundari and Ors. v. Uniform of India reported in AIR 1984 All 277 . It was a case under Railways Act (9 of 1890 ). In that case one Suraj Prelate aged about 18 years was traveling with his other Chet Ram in a train. The train collided with a goods train. As a result both the father and one died in the accident on the pot It was contended that Suraj Prakash was not a bona fide passenger in as much as the pass of Suraj Prakash was obtained his representation Since he was not holding lawful pass to travel he was an unauthorized passenger and his status was not higher than that of a trespasser. In this context and having regard to the provision of Secs. 82a 66 68 113 and 122 of Railways Act (9 of 1890) the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court came to the conclusion that deceased Suraj Prakash was not a bona fide passenger and therefore the claimants were not entitled to claim compensation from the Railways. ( 5 ) THE decision does not help the appellants for the simple reason that the provisions of the Railways Act are not to be considered by the Court in this case. Even assuming for a moment that having regard to the principles underlying the provisions of Railways Act the question involved in this case is required to be considered then also the appellants cannot succeed. Even assuming for a moment that having regard to the principles underlying the provisions of Railways Act the question involved in this case is required to be considered then also the appellants cannot succeed. In para 18 of the judgment the Full Bench has observed as follows:a consideration of Sec. 66 68 13 and 122 of the A it would indicate that R person assumes the status of a passenger and be comes entitled to all the rights and privileges occurring from such relationship when he travel either on ticket or on pass or with permission of the authorised officer (Emphasis supplied) in case of city buses there is always an implied permission for all the members of the public to board the bus at bus stops. It is found by the Tribunal that at the Custom Post the bus stopped and the injured tried to board the bus. It is not the case of the appellants that enter of members of public was prohibited and the conductor of the bus lawfully restrained the injured to enter the bus. In case of public vehicles and particularly city buses the permission to board the basis to be presumed. As far as the railways are concerned the practice as well as the provisions of statute are different. At all railways stations there is a booking one. No one can enter the platform even without purchasing platform tickets. Similarly no one can lawfully board the railway trains without purchasing the railway ticket or without having lawful pass or permit to board the train. Such is not the case with regard to the public buses. In case of public buses permission to board the bus at particular stops is to be presumed. Such presumption would be there in favour of the injured unless the same is rebutted by According necessary evidence. In the instant case evidence is to the contrary. forever it is not even contended that despite refusal and or restraint the injured tried to board the bus. In this view of the matter the Decision of the Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Sundari (supra) does not help the appellants. ( 6 ) THE term `passenger is not defined in the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 Therefore one has to go by the dictionary meaning ant the meaning of the word ordinarily understood by the people. ( 6 ) THE term `passenger is not defined in the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 Therefore one has to go by the dictionary meaning ant the meaning of the word ordinarily understood by the people. Dictionary meaning of the word passenger as given in Blacks Law Dictionary is a person whom a common carrier has contracted to carry from one place to another. The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in he case of Smt. Sundari (supra) has referred to the following passage from the American Jurisprudence which deals with the relationship of carrier and passenger:in accordance with the principles discussed in the preceding section e passenger in the present connection and in the legal sense of the term has been descend generally as one who travels in a public conveyance by virtue of a contract express or implied with the carrier as to the Demount of are or that which is accepted as an equivalent thereof. ( 7 ) IN case of public buses there is always an open offer to the members of the public to travel by the bus. The members of the public by their conduct accept the offer when they board or try to board the bus. On the part of the public Conveyance when there is no restriction whatsoever for any member of the public to board the conveyance and when a member of public boards the conveyance the relationship of passenger of the public carrier comes into existence. Thus by necessary implication There is a contract between the two. In this view of the matter it can be said that when the injured tried to board the bus when it stopped at the Custom Post bus stand on the part of the injured he had accepted the offer of public conveyance. When there was no restriction to board the bus it was an acceptance by conduct In the post of the public conveyance to carry him on payment of necessary fare. Thus by conduct of the parties a contract came into existence and mutual rights and obligations arose out of the contract which came in existence. ( 8 ) IT in the common practice of almost all the City buses no allow the passengers to board the bus without ticket. Tickets are being issued to the passengers after they enter the bus and while the bus is moving. ( 8 ) IT in the common practice of almost all the City buses no allow the passengers to board the bus without ticket. Tickets are being issued to the passengers after they enter the bus and while the bus is moving. This is so because at each and every bus stop there is an booking office. It may be that at the terminal point sometimes the conductor might be standing at the door of the bus and allowing the passengers to board the bus only after they purchase tickets. This is usually not done at the intermittent bus stops. It is not even the case of the appellants that the conductor bad refused the injured to enter the bus without purchasing the ticket. Therefore the contention that the injured had not purchased ticket and therefore he is not a passenger has no merits. ( 9 ) THE Tribunal has relied upon a decision of Rajasthan High court in the case of Makbool Ahmed v. Bhura Lal reported in 1986 (2) ACC 233: (1986 (1) ACT 219 ). The facts in that case were almost identical to the facts of this case. The deceased had placed one foot on the foot-board and the bus has moved. The deceased fell down sad the bus run over him and he was crushed by rear wheel of the bus. The parents and widow of the deceased had claimed compensation. Therein it was contended that the deceased was not a passenger. While dealing with this contention the learned single Judge of Rajasthan High Court referred to the provisions of Sec. 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 and also referred to a decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Gobinda Prasad Mukherjee v. Surjit Bhowmick reported in 1978 ACJ 160. The learned single Judge of Rajasthan High Court agreed with the principles laid down by the Calcutta High Court and thereafter referred to proviso (ii) to sub-sec. The learned single Judge of Rajasthan High Court agreed with the principles laid down by the Calcutta High Court and thereafter referred to proviso (ii) to sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 95 of the Act which reads as under: (II) except were the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of on in pursuance on a Contract of employment to case liability in respect of the death of or bodily supply to persons being carried In on upon or entering on mount or all thing from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which a claim arises after extracting the aforesaid provisions the learned single Judge of Rajasthan High Court has observed as follows: these provision Constitution excepting and are a lever to the proviso. the in supper is therefore to cover liability in respect of death of a person entertains or mounting the bus. The provisions of sub-sec. (2) are subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of sec 95 of the Act. The liability of the Insurer in a case where a person dies while entering on mooting the bus will be governed by the provisions of sub-sec. 12) (b) (11) of sec. 95 of the depending on the registered Sitting capacity of the bus but in no case It will be above a sum of Rs. 50 provided the registered sitting capacity of the bus is for more than six passengers. So are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid observations. In above view of the matter the contention that the injured was not a passenger of the bus cannot be accepted. Appeal summarily dismissed. .