JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - These two appeals u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, 'the Act'), are interlinked as they are" directed against the same judgment passed by the Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Southern Division, Berhampur (in short, 'the Tribunal") disposing of an application for compensation filed by Ch. Bapana Amma (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') claiming compensation for the death of her son Ch. Ballabh Rao alias Ch. Ballav Reddy (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') in an automobile accident. 2. The claimant's version as reflected in the claim petition is essentially as follows: On 14.4.1990 at about 1 p.m. the deceased was travelling in a passenger bus bearing registration No. CSG 9175 belonging to Sambhu Prasad Panda (hereinafter referred to as 'the owner') from Golanthara to Kutharsinghi when the bus stopped at Kutharsinghi, he got down and went to roof of the bus to bring his luggage after intimating the driver and cleaner of the bus While he was coining down with his luggage the driver of the bus suddenly started it as a result of which he fell down and sustained severe bodily injuries. He was removed to M.K.C.G. Medical College Hospital, Berhampur for treatment, but succumbed to the injuries on the next day A claim of Rs. 1 lakh was lodged. On consideration of materials on record brought by the claimant, owner of the vehicle and the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the insurer'),the Tribunal quantified the compensation at Rs. 36,000/-but fixed liability on the owner on the ground that the materials on record established that the deceased was travelling on the roof of the vehicles, and therefore, was not entitled to compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the claimant and the owner have urged that there was no material to show that the deceased was travelling on the top of the bus and had not gone up there as claimed. It is submitted that the author or the first information report was not examined; and therefore, it should not have been treated to be a material piece of evidence in support of the stand that the deceased was sitting on the top of the vehicle as a passenger. I find that in Misc. It is submitted that the author or the first information report was not examined; and therefore, it should not have been treated to be a material piece of evidence in support of the stand that the deceased was sitting on the top of the vehicle as a passenger. I find that in Misc. Appeal No. .623 of 1994 filed by the owner there was no appearance on behalf of the insurer though counsel have filed Vakalatnama. When the matter was called, additionally prayer was made for hearing Misc. Appeal Nos. 623 and 646 of 1994 together, which was accepted. 4. These two appeals raise a point of law of some consequence having regard to the unusual circumstances of the case. The main issue involved is whether on the fact situation as indicated above, it can be held that the owner is liable to pay compensation and consequentially the insurer is to indemnify it. As indicated in Chapter IX of Salmod's Law of Torts. 18th Edition, quite apart from situations where wrongful intent is required by law as a condition of liability, the concept of negligence essentially involves mental attitude of the defendant towards the consequence of his act. It may be a positive act or it may be the evidence of doing something which the law expects of that person. Merely because the wrongdoer was not conscious of his duty would not to any extent reduce his liability. It is true that a distinction has to be drawn between inadvertence and recklessness but the position in law has been settled by the decision of the House of Lords in Donochue v. Stevenson : (1932) AC 562 wherein it was held that negligence, where there is a duty to take care is a specific tort in itself. 5. In a bus the liability so far as negligence is concerned cannot necessarily be confined only to the action or inaction on the part of the driver, because in public transport vehicle the concept extends also to other members of the operating group. Section 29 appearing in Chapter III of the Act deals with the desirability of the conductor of stage carriage to obtain a licence. Section 29 appearing in Chapter III of the Act deals with the desirability of the conductor of stage carriage to obtain a licence. Invariably as far as transport vehicles are concerned, there is a second person who is generally designated as conductor and law expects a certain degree of care and caution to be exercised by the conductor of the vehicle, may be in conjunction with the driver, and therefrom, in a situation where it is demonstrated that death or injury has occasioned because of the negligence on the pan of the conductor or the conductor along with the driver, the liability would still arise. 6. It is true that the passengers do not travel on the roof of the bus. Therefore, question is whether by sitting on the top of the bus, liability if any ceases. It is hard to believe that the driver or the conductor did not have knowledge that persons were sitting oh the top of the bus. As observed by the Apex Court in Shivaji Dayanu Patil and another Vs. Smt. Vatschala Uttam More. as long as it is demonstrated that the vehicle was being put to the purpose for which it was intended namely to carry the passengers or goods, the fact that the incident took place at a time when it was stationary would make no difference to the aspect of liability. It was pleaded before the Tribunal that they had gone there without the knowledge and consent of the driver or conductor--as the case may be Evidence is lacking in that regard. The assertion that the deceased after informing the driver had gone on the top of the bus has not been materially negatived. Emphasis has been on some statement made in the first-information-report, author of which has not been examined as a witness. Looked at from any angle, the claimant was entitled to Compensation and the amount is to be indemnified by the insurer. The Tribunal. therefore, went wrong in holding that the owner was liable to pay the compensation. 7. Next question that emerges for consideration as urged in the appeal filed by the claimant is to the quantum awarded There was no definite material about the income of deceased. Claim was made that the deceased aged about 20 years was earning Rs. 1,400/- to Rs. 1,500/- per month. 7. Next question that emerges for consideration as urged in the appeal filed by the claimant is to the quantum awarded There was no definite material about the income of deceased. Claim was made that the deceased aged about 20 years was earning Rs. 1,400/- to Rs. 1,500/- per month. Annual contribution to the family was worked out by the tribunal at Rs. 7,200/-. The Tribunal quantified the total compensation at Rs. 72,000/- and held that by apportioning the extent of negligence of driver and the deceased, claimant was entitled to Rs. 36,000/-. In view of my finding that negligence is to be attributed to the operating staff of the vehicle, apportionment as made by the Tribunal cannot be maintained. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 72,000/-from the owner to be indemnified by the insurer. Rate of interest to be applied as awarded by the Tribunal does not need any interference Percentage of fixed deposit as directed by the Tribunal is in order. These two appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above.