Judgment : The Oriental Insurance Company through its Divisional Manager, Madurai, aggrieved against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ramanathapuram, in M.C.O.P.No. 682 of 1989 has filed the above appeal. The facts leading to the filing of the claim petition is briefly stated hereunder: On 9. 1988 the deceased Balakrishnan boarded the bus TNT.961 belonging to the first respondent at Tharakudi, Ramanathapuram District. He was to get down at Kallikulam Bridge. The deceased requested the driver to stop the vehicle and the driver also stopped the vehicle. The said Balakrishnan got down the bus and started walking. At that time the driver took the vehicle so rashly and negligently, due to which the vehicle dashed against the deceased and the left rear wheel of the bus ran over him. The deceased died on the spot. The wife, children and mother of the deceased filed petition for compensation claiming a sum of Rs.4 Lakhs. The Insurance Company filed a counter-affidavit disputing both the negligence and quantum aspects. In the additional statement they also contended that at the time of the accident, the deceased was a passenger in the vehicle, hence their liability is limited to Rs. 15,000 as per the policy of the insurance. They also denied the other aspects regarding the manner of accident. The first claimant, wife of the deceased was examined as P. W. 1 and two more witnesses were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 on the side of the claimants. They also marked Exs.P-1 to P-7 in support of their claim. On the other hand, on the side of the Insurance Company, R.W.I an of-ficer of the Insurance Company was examined and copy of the policy was marked as Ex.R-1. In the light of the above pleadings and after considering the oral and documentary evidence after holding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of the bus and after finding that the deceased was a third party, consequently passed an award for Rs.2 lakhs payable by the owner as well as Insurance Company. The said award is being questioned in this appeal. 2. I have heard Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.K.M. Venugopal, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3. 3. The said award is being questioned in this appeal. 2. I have heard Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.K.M. Venugopal, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3. 3. Mr.Vijayaraghavan learned counsel for the appellant even at the beginning submitted that the appellant is very much concerned with their liability; hence he contended that the tribunal erred in fastening the entire liability on the insurance company instead of restricting it to Rs. 15,000 only under the provisions of Sec.95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and terms and conditions of policy of insurance Ex.R-1, since the deceased met with an accident and died as a passenger of the bus. On the other hand, Mr.K.M. Venugopal, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that after getting down from the bus at the bus-stop while the deceased was taking steps because of the negligent driving of the driver of the bus, he was run over; hence the deceased was not a “passenger” of the bus and the tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that he was only a third party. In such circumstances, according to him, the award of the tribunal is in order and he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 5. In view of the limited question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is no need to discuss other aspects in this appeal, namely, negligence and quantum aspects. 6. It is the case of the appellant-Insurance Company that while the deceased was getting down from the bus, he fell down and met with an accident. According to him, if it is acceptable, then the deceased was only a passenger of the bus. If that is so, as per Sec.95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as well as the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance Ex.R-1 marked through R.W.I an Officer of the Insurance Company, their liability is only Rs. 15,000. In order to substantiate the above contention, the Insurance Company has not examined any one with regard to the above aspect. The only witness examined on their side is their Officer, as R.W.1 to mark the policy of insurance. There is no dispute that if the court holds that the deceased was only a passenger, the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to an extent of Rs. 15,000 only for passenger. The only witness examined on their side is their Officer, as R.W.1 to mark the policy of insurance. There is no dispute that if the court holds that the deceased was only a passenger, the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to an extent of Rs. 15,000 only for passenger. On the other hand, if it is found that the deceased was a third party, the liability of the Insurance Company is unlimited. In the absence of any evidence with regard to the said aspect on the side of the Insurance Company, I shall consider the evidence adduced on the side of the claimants. The witnesses who explained the manner of accident are P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.2 is a resident of Vallakulam and according to him, he knows the deceased. The deceased Balakrishnan is a native of Tharakudi. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.2 that on 9. 1988 at about 7 a.m., he was travelling in the very same bus, namely, TNT.961. His evidence further says that the deceased Balakrishnan travelled in the bus as a passenger at the time of the accident. He further deposes that at the request of deceased Balakrishnan the said bus was stopped near Kallikulam Bridge at Vangarukulam, which is the next stopping of his native place. In this regard, the evidence of P.W.2 is in the following manner: It was he who informed the accident to the police station. His complaint was marked as Ex.P-6. He also deposed that“ With regard to the contents of the First Information Report said to have been entered by the police, in cross-examination, he deposed thus: The other witness who explained the manner of accident is P.W.3. He is also another passenger travelled in the same bus during the relevant time. The evidence of P.W.3 corroborates the evidence of P.W.2 on the above aspect. He is also another passenger travelled in the same bus during the relevant time. The evidence of P.W.3 corroborates the evidence of P.W.2 on the above aspect. P.W.3 has deposed in his evidence thus: He also denied the suggestion in the following manner: The perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 who are the eye witnesses of the accident, clearly show that after getting down from the bus through the front entrance of the bus and while he was about to take steps for proceeding further, the driver of the bus took the vehicle suddenly, as a result of which the left side body hit the deceased and his head was run over by the left rear wheel of the bus. 7. With this acceptable evidence on the side of the claimants the Insurance Company did not examine on their side the bus driver in order to prove their case. At this stage the learned counsel for the appellant, relying on a decision of this Court in Venkataswami Motor Service v. C.K.Chinnaswamy, 1993 A.C.J. 1, contended that a person alighting from a bus is only a passenger and in that event the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs. 15,000. After going through the said decision, there is no difficulty in accepting the proposition of law as pointed out by the learned counsel” for the appellant. However, in the absence of any evidence on the side of the owner and insurer and when the eye witnesses, viz., P.Ws.2 and 3 clearly speak about the manner of accident, it is highly improbable to accept the case of the Insurance Company. I have already extracted the statement of P.Ws.2 and 3. It is clear from the evidence that the deceased got down from the bus at the bus-stop and while he was taking steps to proceed further, because of the rashness and negligence of the driver of the bus, the left side body of the bus had a contact with the deceased thereby he fell down and the left rear wheel ran over him. In the light of the overwhelming and acceptable evidence of P.W.2 and 3 and in the absence of any contra evidence, the decision referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant may not be useful for his case. 8. In the light of the overwhelming and acceptable evidence of P.W.2 and 3 and in the absence of any contra evidence, the decision referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant may not be useful for his case. 8. It is also relevant to mention a Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in New India Assurance Co. Limitedv. Santhamma, (1997)1 A.C.C. 498. It has been concluded in the said decision thus: “...In the instant case, Ex.A-1 is a contemporaneous document prepared by the police which shows that the second respondent driver moved the vehicle forward and the bus ran over the left leg of the deceased who was lying on the road at that time. P.W.2 was travelling along with the deceased in the bus, deposed that both of them got down from the bus and from the evidence it is clear that the deceased Appukuttan Nair had ceased to have any physical contact with the bus while he was lying on the road when the bus ran over him. Therefore, we are unable to hold that he was a passenger at the time he sustained injuries and all the decisions cited above were rendered in the background of different set of facts. The deceased Appukuttan Nair happened to sustain fatal injuries as he could not move to safe distance from the bus. Till he alighted from the bus, he did not sustain any injury.” It is further observed thus: “...If the passenger was involuntarily thrown out from the vehicle, he will continue to be a passenger as he had no intention to get down from the vehicle. But if the passenger voluntarily alighted from the bus and touched the ground and ceased to have any physical contact with the bus, it cannot be said that he continued to be a passenger....” The ratio laid down by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court is applicable to our case. 9. In the light of the evidence discussed above, I hold that the deceased was not a passenger and he met with the accident as a third party. In such a circumstance, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Except the above argument, no other point was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 10. Net result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.