M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned advocates on both sides. ( 2 ) THIS appeal assails the correctness of an order dated2-8-1984 passed in M. V. C. No. 221 of 1982 whereby the m. A. C. T. , Dharwad, had dismissed the appellant's claim for compensation. The appellant had contended that on 3-3-1982 at about 10-30 a. m. , he attempted to put a bag into a KSRTC bus no. MYF 3781 through the window in order to secure a seat for himself. The versions are conflicting, but the position that emerges is that this attempt was made prior to the bus coming to a halt. The bus stand was extremely crowded due to the holding of 'uras', and in these circumstances, the claimant fell off the side of the bus and sustained two minor injuries externally, but four fractures of some seriousness. He filed a claim petition M. V. C. 165 of 1982 prior to the present one and thereafter, followed that up with the present claim petition. The earlier petition came to be dismissed and as far as the present one is concerned, the learned Judge after considering the material before him, came to the conclusion that normally, the appellant would have been entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,600/- having regard to the seriousness of the injuries. However, since the learned Judge took the view that no negligence was established vis-a-vis the driver of the bus, he dismissed the petition. It is against this order that the present appeal has been directed. ( 3 ) APPELLANT's learned advocate submits that regardless of the state of the record which undoubtedly is in a rather unhappy condition, that the appellant's earlier application has been dismissed and that therefore, there is no bar to the Court considering his plea for compensation on the basis of the present application. As regards the merits, he submits that the law is very clear to the effect that the finding of negligence on the part of the Corporation's employees is not condition precedent for the award of compensation, particularly after the decision of the supreme Court in the case of Shivaji Dayanu Patil and Another v Smt. Vatschala Uttam More. It is his submission that this court has considered the law very recently while deciding miscellaneous First Appeal No. 247 of 1995. It is his submission that this court has considered the law very recently while deciding miscellaneous First Appeal No. 247 of 1995. The learned advocate submits that the position in law having now been set at rest, even if the facts indicate that the injuries were sustained while the appellant was trying to board the bus or get hold of a seat for that purpose, dehors the fact that there was no negligence on the part of the driver, that his claim for compensation would still be sustained, because the principles governing the insurance are wide enough to cover any form of damage or injury that may occur in the course of the use of the vehicle. This proposition is a bit too wide for acceptance, but the fact remains that the Supreme Court did, in the decision referred to supra, take the view that in given situations, the obligation to compensation would hold good even if it has not been established that there is negligence on the part of the person operating the vehicle. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the Corporation, it is submitted that the facts of this case are such that the Court rightly dismissed the claim for compensation. The emphasis is on the fact that the driver brought the vehicle into the bus stand when the place was abnormally crowded, that there was a virtual scramble by the appellant and others to approach the bus and that since admittedly, the appellant was not boarding the bus, but was trying to do something other than that, that the injuries, if any, occurred entirely due to his own negligence and that the principle of volenti non fit injuria would apply in this case. The submission is that even if negligence is not the criterion, that if the Corporation can demonstrate that the passenger concerned has committed a reckless act and sustained that injury, thereby that the evidence is too remote for passing the liability on to the corporation. Under normal circumstances, I would have upheld this argument except for the fact that the appellant was in the process of trying to board the bus, undoubtedly, by first preparing to secure a seat for himself. Under normal circumstances, I would have upheld this argument except for the fact that the appellant was in the process of trying to board the bus, undoubtedly, by first preparing to secure a seat for himself. The circumstances under which the injuries took place are eloquent and I am in agreement with the submission canvassed by the Corporation's learned advocate to some extent that the driver of the bus virtually had no control whatsoever over the crowd that was standing there and that the act of the appellant did not come within the normal activity of even boarding the bus. Merely because he was injured in the course of preparing to board the bus, and since the injury occurred in relation to the vehicle while it was in use, he would technically qualify for compensation. . But this compensation would have to be considerably brought down in so far as to my mind this is a clear case where the facts undisputedly indicate contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. ( 5 ) THE learned trial Judge has quantified the compensation at Rs. 20,600/- which, to my mind requires to be reduced by half, In so doing, I am taking the cognizance of the fact that since the original application had failed and since a long period of time has elapsed, the claimant would be reasonably compensated by virtue of the considerable amount of interest that would accrue on the amount. ( 6 ) THE appeal accordingly succeeds. The compensation is fixedat Rs. 10,300/-, but it is directed that the interest payable thereon which will be at the rate of 6%, shall run from the date of the filing of the application before the M. A. C. T. upto the date on which the amount is deposited by the Corporation. The costs are quantified at Rs. 500/ -. The Corporation shall deposit the amount with the tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the judgment. Liberty to the appellant to withdraw the amount that is deposited. Office to furnish a copy of this judgment to the respondents immediately. ( 7 ) IA. III does not survive and stands disposed of. --- *** --- .