Judgment R. BALIA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the Insurance Company against an Award made by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Udaipur (for short the Tribunal hereinafter), on 5/05/1993 in the following circumstances: indersingh, respondent No. 1 claimant while he was boarding the Bus No. RRJ 6252 near the Bus Stand, B. N. College, Udaipur for going to Chittorgarh and his one leg was on third step and one on the second step of the foot-board the Driver started the Bus, as a result of which he fell down and suffered multiple injuries. The accident took place on Febr 2/02/1987. The Bus is a vehicle which is used for carrying passengers for hire and reward and was insured with the appellant Company. Injured Indersingh claimed compensation against the Owner and Driver of the Bus, who are respondents No. 2 and 3 in the appeal and also against the Insurance Company, the appellant from whom the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is recoverable. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000. 00 as compensation. ( 2 ) REGARDING the liability of Insurance Company, the Insurance Company pleaded that the claimant was a passenger and under the policy, the liability in respect of passengers of the vehicle was limited to Rs. 15,000. 00 per passenger in terms of Section 95 (2) (b) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. The accident having taken place prior to commencement of Motor Vehicles Act 198 8/07/1989, the claim was governed by the provisions of old Act. The Owner and the Driver pleaded that the injured was not a passenger inasmuch as he has not fully boarded the Bus and therefore, he comes within the meaning of third party and the liability of Insurance Company qua the third party being unlimited or at any rate to the extent of Rs. 50,000. 00 in terms of Section 95 (2) (b) (i), the Insurance Company is liable for the full amount of compensation awarded. 50,000. 00 in terms of Section 95 (2) (b) (i), the Insurance Company is liable for the full amount of compensation awarded. The Tribunal relying on the two decisions of the Madras High Court in Uvaraja v. Parvathi Ammal 1986 ACJ 506 and Sivakumar Transports v. Mani alias Palaniswamy, 1990 ACJ 836 (wrongly quoted at Page No. 57 in the Tribunals Judgment), held that a person who is boarding the Bus cannot be treated as passenger and comes, within category of a third party and therefore, liability of Insurance Company in terms of the policy is limited to the extent for which it governs third party risk which in the present case was held to be Rs. 50,000. 00. ( 3 ) IN view of this finding, the Tribunal held Insurance Company liable for the recovery of the entire amount of Rs. 25,000/- awarded as compensation. ( 4 ) THE only question raised and which calles for determination in the present appeal is whether a person who is entering or mounting the vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire and reward is to be treated as a passenger to be covered by the limits of liability prescribed under Section 95 (2) (b) (ii) or he is a third party falling under Section 95 (2) ( (b) (i ). ( 5 ) IT will be relevant here to notice Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939, which governs the present case: 95. Requirements of policies and limits of liability. (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must a policy which,- (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer, and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)- (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger or a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. Provided that a policy shall not be required: (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment, in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee. (a) to (c ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii) except where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire of reward or by reason of or in pursurance of contract of employment, to cover liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence o the event out of which a claim arises, or (iii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1) a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely:- (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment,- (i) in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all; (ii) in respect of passengers, a limit of fifteen thousand rupees for each individual passenger;. ( 6 ) FROM the perusal of Section 95 of the Act as a whole, it is apparent that while Section 95 (1) governs the minimum risks which are required to be covered by a Insurance Policy under the statute and Section 95 (2) provides the minimum statutory limits of liability in respect of risks required to be covered under sub-section (1), to be undertaken by the policy. ( 7 ) UNDER Section 95 (1) (b) of the. Act of 1939, there is clear distinction between coverage of risk relating to third party and passenger which is in relation of the victim to the vehicle, while passengers risk is covered under sub-clause (b) (ii), other risks are covered by sub-clause (b) (i) of Section 95 (1) of the Act. The proviso to sub-clause (b) (ii) of Section 95 (1) culls out exception to the coverage of risk in respect of passengers qua certain persons. Sub-clause (ii) of proviso is also exception to sub-clause (b) (ii) viz. passengers in respect of whom a Insurance Policy is not required to cover risk. Sub-clause (ii) of proviso makes it abundantly clear that a person who is being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the event out of which a claim arises has been treated to be a passenger falling in the exceptions. It only means that a person who is being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the vehicle other than a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of contract of employment, is not required to be covered by the policy. However, such passengers are required to be covered where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward. This is obviously for the reason that vehicles which carry passengers for hire or reward ply with an open invitation to intending passengers to travel through it. So the moment, an intending traveller puts himself in the act of boarding it a relationship of carrier and passenger comes into existence notwithstanding there is some time lag between the person coming in contact of vehicle for, boarding and he actually taking his seat and get his ticket, if not already purchased from the counter. So the moment, an intending traveller puts himself in the act of boarding it a relationship of carrier and passenger comes into existence notwithstanding there is some time lag between the person coming in contact of vehicle for, boarding and he actually taking his seat and get his ticket, if not already purchased from the counter. It cannot be said that until such person actually gets himself inside the bus and conductor issues ticket, he can be denied the right to travel through that vehicle. Such a person cannot be treated as a third party. Limits of liability in respect of such victim will, therefore, be governed by Section 92 (2) (b) (ii) and not by Section 95 (2) (b) (i) of the Act of 1939. ( 8 ) I am fortified in this conclusion by a decision of this Court in Makbool Ahmed v. Bhura Lal, 1985 RLR 519 : 1986 ACJ 219 : AIR 1986 Raj 177 . ( 9 ) THAT was a case where the deceased Mustaq Ahmed was attempting to board a Bus and he could place only one foot on the foot-board and Bus moved. The victim fell down and was crushed by rear wheel of the Bus. The plea of the claimant was that deceased was not a passenger and even if he was taken to be a passenger he was a gratuitous passenger, therefore, he was not being carried for hire or reward, the liability of the Insurance Company will be governed by Section 95 (2) (b) (i) of the Act. The Court negatived both the contentions and came to the conclusion as under"it is true that Mustaq Ahmed could place only one foot on the foot-board and the bus move. He fell down and was rolled over and crushed by the rear wheel of the bus. He thus, attempted to board the bus. The clinching question is whether a person who attempts to board a bus should or should not be taken to be a passenger? The word passenger has not been defined in the Act. It, therefore, depends on the facts and circumstances of the case whether a person attempting to board the bus is a passenger or not? I have discused above under Point No. 1 that the driver and the conductor should keep the bus stationary till every passenger has boarded the bus. The word passenger has not been defined in the Act. It, therefore, depends on the facts and circumstances of the case whether a person attempting to board the bus is a passenger or not? I have discused above under Point No. 1 that the driver and the conductor should keep the bus stationary till every passenger has boarded the bus. Therefore, if a person attempts to board the bus, he should be taken to be a passenger for all purposes:" ( 10 ) THIS is the conclusion, the Court arrived at for the reason that wherever the Bus stops to take passengers, it is the duty of the Driver and Conductor that Bus is kept stationary till every intending traveller is boarded on Bus i. e. to say till the act of every intended passengers to board the bus is complete, it is the duty of the Conductor and Bus Driver to keep the bus stationary so that such boarder do not suffer injuries. The fact that before the act of boarding is completed and ticket is issued to in coming passengers, the Bus starts and such person suffers injuries, does not make it any less a passenger. For arriving at this conclusion, the Court placed reliance on proviso (b) (ii) of Section 95, referred to above. ( 11 ) I am in respectful agreement with the reasoning stated therein. ( 12 ) THE same view was taken by the Calcutta High Court in Gobinda Prosad Mukherjee v. Sujit Bhowmick AIR 1978 Cal 109 : 1978 ACJ 160. ( 13 ) IT was a case in which the respondent has not boarded the bus but has only attempted to board the bus and the contention was raised before the Court that the claimant was not a passenger. The Court negatived the contention in the following terms after referring to proviso (ii) of subsection (2) of Section 95 of the Act:"sub-SECTION (2) having been made subject to the proviso to sub-section (1 ). It covers the liability for death or bodily injury to persons caused in the circumstances stated above. The Court negatived the contention in the following terms after referring to proviso (ii) of subsection (2) of Section 95 of the Act:"sub-SECTION (2) having been made subject to the proviso to sub-section (1 ). It covers the liability for death or bodily injury to persons caused in the circumstances stated above. The word "passengers" in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 95 also includes within it any person meeting with death or bodily injury under the circumstances mentioned in the proviso (ii) to sub-section (1) where the vehicle is one in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or under a contract of employment. In our view, there is no substance in the contention of the appellant that the respondent was not a passenger as he had only attempted to board the bus at the time the accident happened and accordingly, the insurer should be held liable for the whole amount of compensation as awarded. " ( 14 ) THE decision of Calcutta High Court was relied on by this Court in Makbool Ahmeds case Recently, a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Commissioner, Jamnagar Municipal Corporation, Jamnagar v. Vijay Kumar Bhagwanji 1990 ACJ 712 , relying on the aforesaid two decisions of the Rajasthan High Court and Calcutta High Court came to the same conclusion. ( 15 ) THAT was also a case in which the respondent-claimant met with accident while boarding a public bus belonging to Jamnagar Municipal Corporation, he fell down from the bus as bus started with a jerk. The question raised whether the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to the extent to Rs. 15,000. 00 in respect of passengers under S. 95 (2) (b) (ii) as in the present case. The court answered in affirmative as under:"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 and public carrier comes into existence. Thus, by a necessary implication there is a contract between the two. 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 and public carrier comes into existence. Thus, by a 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 Customs 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 on the part 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 into existence. " ( 16 ) IN view of my aforesaid conclusion, which are in consonance with the earlier decision of this Court and is further fortified with the decisions of Calcutta and Gujarat High Courts, I find myself unable to agree with the view expressed by the Madras High Court in two decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents and on which reliance was also placed by the Tribunal. It may be noticed that the constant view of the Madras High Court in the two decisions referred to above, as well as in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. K. Sundaravali 1990 ACJ 821 , and an unreported decision in Damodaran v. Santhanam AAO No. 558 of 1979; decided on 28/07/1981, referred to in Shivakumar Transports case, acre all founded on the reasoning that a person while boarding the vehicle is not a passenger but is a third party. This view has been arrived at without noticing the provisions of sub-clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 95 (1) (b) (ii) and in my opinion with great respect, does not lay down the law correctly. This view has been arrived at without noticing the provisions of sub-clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 95 (1) (b) (ii) and in my opinion with great respect, does not lay down the law correctly. ( 17 ) AS a result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that on the findings of the Tribunal Indersingh claimant can be treated only as a passenger qua the vehicle involved in accident, and in that view of the matter, the liability of the Insurance Company under the policy is only restricted to Rs. 15,000. 00 per passenger. Therefore, the amount recoverable against the appellant shall only be to the extent of Rs. 15,000. 00 and interest thereon at the rate as per Award. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.