R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the appellant on account of death of Shailesh, the husband of appellant No. 1; father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and son of appellant No. 4. According to the claimants, the deceased was thrown out of the bus due to abrupt turn taken while the bus was in speed and, therefore, the deceased was thrown out of the bus from the rear exit and it is said to be due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that the deceased had tried to get down from a moving bus and he had fallen on account of his own negligence and, therefore, the respondents were not liable for this unfortunate accident. ( 2 ) AS far as the oral evidence is concerned, there is nothing which can throw any light. The widow Ex. 36 is not an eye witness. The driver and the conductor exhs. 51 and 54 have stated that they have not seen as to how the deceased fell out. The driver learnt about the passenger falling out of the bus only after the bus had proceeded some distance. The conductor has said that he had gone towards the front door when the incident occurred and he had not seen as to how the deceased fell out of the bus. ( 3 ) THE claimants have examined one witness Madhusudan Ex. 48 who has stated that he was a co-passenger in the bus and he had seen the incident. His evidence is rightly not believed by the Tribunal. He says that he did not know the deceased or the claimants and that about 15 days after the incident, he happened to meet a relative of the deceased at the place of some third person by a mere accident and out of a casual talk about the present accident, the witness came out with a story that he was present in the bus when the accident occurred. His evidence came to be recorded after three years of the accident and his name was disclosed for the first time only four days before his evidence was recorded and after the evidence of the claimant was recorded. His evidence came to be recorded after three years of the accident and his name was disclosed for the first time only four days before his evidence was recorded and after the evidence of the claimant was recorded. Neither in the claim petition nor in any other application or even in the deposition of the claimant, his name is referred to. His name is also not referred to in the criminal case. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly discarded his evidence. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, there are some other significant and crucial circumstances. The deceased was coming from Bhuyangdev and had to go to Saraspur to attend to his employment in Himadri Textile Mills. There was no direct bus and he had to change the bus from Lal Darwaja Bus Terminus and fetch another bus No. 133 for Saraspur. According to the respondents, the bus stand for Saraspur from Lal darwaja is near Siddi Saiyed Jali which is near to the place of the accident and lal Darwaja Bus Terminus was at a distance of about a furlong. The bus stop prior to Lal Darwaja Bus Terminus is near Dinbai Tower which is also quite nearby the bus stop for Saraspur from the place of the accident. It is, therefore, contended by the respondents that in order that the deceased could go to Siddi Saiyed Jali bus stand, he had tried to get down from the moving bus even though there was no bus stop and that the deceased has taken the risk of getting down from a moving bus at a turning point where the bus would normally slow down, as Siddi Saiyed jali bus stand was very near to this turning point. This may be a plausible theory, but no one has deposed to the same. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, the condition of the deceased was very peculiar. His right hand from above the elbow was amputated only two months back and there was still dressing and bandage on the amputated portion. In the left hand also, there had been a fracture in the earlier accident as a result of which the right hand had to be amputated. He had resumed duties only 20 days prior to the accident. Thus, it is obvious that he did not have right hand at all and his left hand had a fracture two months back. In the left hand also, there had been a fracture in the earlier accident as a result of which the right hand had to be amputated. He had resumed duties only 20 days prior to the accident. Thus, it is obvious that he did not have right hand at all and his left hand had a fracture two months back. In such a condition, it is impossible to believe that he would try to make any attempt to get down from a moving bus. In fact, he was incapable of making any such attempt and the theory is put forward by the respondents only as a possible theory not supported by any evidence. It is put forward merely because it is plausible, but when we look at these unimpeachable circumstances, there is no escape from the conclusion that the deceased could not have tried and had not tried to get down from a moving bus. ( 6 ) THE conductor Sohanlal Ex. 54 has stated that the deceased had occupied a seat in the long bench of three seats on the drivers side. Such bench is near the rear exist of the bus, but the conductor has not seen as to how the accident had occurred. It appears that the deceased must have got up from his seat as the Terminus was about to come and at the turning point, the bus must have moved in speed without slowing down and taken a sudden and abrupt turn throwing off the deceased out of the rear exist. Since the deceased was handicapped and was not in a position to balance himself or to hold anything, he was thrown out. If the driver had slowly and smoothly taken the turn, the accident would not have occurred. The accident had occurred early in the morning at about 7-30 when there was no traffic and, therefore, it is probable that he took the turn with his normal spped without slowing down at the turning point and gave a jerk to the passengers inside the bus and unfortunately the deceased who was handicapped could not take care of himself and was thrown off on the road and received fatal injuries and died. ( 7 ) IT is, thus, clear that the driver had taken the turn rashly and negligently and not slowly and smoothly. ( 7 ) IT is, thus, clear that the driver had taken the turn rashly and negligently and not slowly and smoothly. The duty cast on a driver of a public passenger bus is that the driver should know and realise that all kinds of people travel by a public travel system which might include children, old, infants, invalid, handicapped and other persons. The duty of the driver of such a vehicle is to see that he does not cause any situation which might result into any injury to anyone. He has failed to take that care and, therefore, it is his carelessness which has caused this unfortunate incident. ( 8 ) AT the same time, it cannot be said that the deceased himself had not contributed to the accident. Having regard to his peculiar condition, he ought not to have got up from his seat and stood somewhere near the exist in a moving bus especially when he was unable to take care of himself and maintain stability, but his negligence cannot be said to be that serious as that of the driver. He can be said to be negligent; at the most to the extent of 25% and the bus driver must be held neligent to the extent of 75% for the accident that has occurred resulting into death of deceased Shailesh. ( 9 ) ON the question of compensation, there is clear evidence of the employer-Himadri Mills which is a nationalised undertaking that his total pay packet was rs. 2,771/- p. m. at the time of the accident. The deceased was holding Diploma in Textiles from M. S. University. He was aged 40 years at the time of the accident. Having regard to the future propects which have been deposed to by the official of the Mill-Comapny, it can be roughly estimated that the deceased would have earned at least Rs. 5,000. 00 per month and deducting a sum of Rs. 1,500. 00 on account of his personal expenses, the deceased would have contributed Rs. 3,500. 00 per month to the family and the dependents including the mother, widow and two minor children. Therefore, the loss of dependency benefit per year would be Rs. 42,000. 00 and applying a multiplier of 12, the resultant figure would be Rs. 5,04,000. 00. Adding to this, the amount of Rs. 15,000. 3,500. 00 per month to the family and the dependents including the mother, widow and two minor children. Therefore, the loss of dependency benefit per year would be Rs. 42,000. 00 and applying a multiplier of 12, the resultant figure would be Rs. 5,04,000. 00. Adding to this, the amount of Rs. 15,000. 00 for loss of expectancy of life and a sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 for loss of consortium, the total amount would come to Rs. 5,34,000. 00. Since the deceased himself has also been found contributory negligent to the extent of 25%, this amount is required to be reduced by 1/4th and, therefore, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 4,00,500. 00 with 12% interest from the date of the application in the Tribunal till realisation with proportionate costs of both the Courts. The respondents shall deposit this amount in the Tribunal within three months from today. The appeal is allowed accordingly. On such deposit, the amount shall be apportioned equally amongst the four claimants and the amounts including accrued interest payable to the minors Anal and Vishal shall be invested by the Tribunal in long term cumulative fixed deposit of at least five years. The half of the amounts payable to the widow and the mother including the accrued interest shall also be invested in a long term fixed deposit for a period of three years and periodical interest thereon shall be paid to them. The balance amount shall be paid to the claimants - widow and mother by account payee cheques in their names. .