JUDGMENT 1. - Claimants-appellants filed a motor accident claim on account of the death of Shri Shiv Bux in an accident that took place on 11th February, 1986. It has been stated that the deceased Shiv Bux was going in a Roadways bus No. RRG-5862 from Sikar to Dujod. Conductor asked Re. 1.50 as fare of the bus from the deceased, but, he stated that the fare of the bus from Sikar to Dujod was only Re. 1.00. Conductor was furious and suddenly opened gate of the running bus as the deceased was standing near the gate of the overloaded bus. He fell down out of the bus and was run over by the rear wheel as a result of which, he died. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, (for short the Tribunal) has held that the appellants were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,04,000/-, but, it rejected the claim petition because according to the learned Tribunal, the accident did not take place because of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver or the conductor of the bus. Feeling aggrieved by such rejection of the claim petition, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 2. I have heard the arguments of both the sides. 3. It is the duty of the conductor of the bus to see that the passengers who want to get down have got down safely, and, those who want to board it have boarded it safely. The duty of the conductor is to stand at the gate of the bus and see that the passengers are travelling safely. If the rule of precaution and the safety of the passengers are not adhered to by the conductor, he is guilty of the dereliction of his duty exhibiting rashness and negligence on his part. 4. Ratan Singh (AW 5) is eye-witness of the accident and was himself a passenger in the bus in question, at the relevant time. He has deposed that the deceased was in the bus, and, the bus was running. When the conductor of the bus asked for Re. 1.50 as fare of the bus, the deceased stated that the fare chargeable is only Re. 1/-. On this, the conductor asked the deceased to get down out of the bus. According to Ratan Singh (AW 5), the conductor opened the gate of the bus while the bus was running. When the conductor of the bus asked for Re. 1.50 as fare of the bus, the deceased stated that the fare chargeable is only Re. 1/-. On this, the conductor asked the deceased to get down out of the bus. According to Ratan Singh (AW 5), the conductor opened the gate of the bus while the bus was running. All of a sudden, the driver of the bus, applied brake resulting jerk as a result of which the deceased fell down out of the bus and the rear wheel of the bus run-over him, and, in the accident, he died. This witness has stated in the cross-examination that the deceased was asked to get down of the bus while the bus was still in motion.According to Ratan Singh (AW 5), the accident took place on account of the dereliction of duty of the bus conductor & the negligence of the driver of the bus. 5. The driver of the bus, Ganpatram (NAW 3/1) has admitted in cross-examination that the deceased was inside the bus, and was standing near the gate of the bus. He has stated that he did not know as to how the accident took place and how the deceased fell down out of the bus. According to NAW 3/1, the deceased himself jumped out of the bus while it was running. 6. Shivpal Singh (NAW 2/1) is conductor of the bus at the relevant time. He has deposed that while he was checking the passengers of the bus, one passenger fell down out of the bus. He has stated that he did not know as to how he fell down out of the bus. In cross-examination, he has stated that he had made a written report of the incident to his department. 7. On the doctrine of preponderance of the probability the testimony of AW 5, seems to be more reliable, trust-worthy and true while the testimony of NAW 3/1 and NAW 2/1 do not inspire confidence. It is highly improbable that a person would jump out of the running bus without any reason or rhyme. Moreover, the report which the conductor (NAW 2/1) has submitted to his department, has not been placed on record. Withholding this report goes to indicate that the witnesses, NAW 3/1 and NAW 2/1, are not telling the truth. It is highly improbable that a person would jump out of the running bus without any reason or rhyme. Moreover, the report which the conductor (NAW 2/1) has submitted to his department, has not been placed on record. Withholding this report goes to indicate that the witnesses, NAW 3/1 and NAW 2/1, are not telling the truth. It seems to be highly probable that there would have been some dispute with regard to the fare, and consequently, the bus conductor asked the deceased to get down from the bus and out of the rashness, the conductor must have opened the gate of the bus, and whistled so that the driver may slow down the bus, and in the process, due to the jerk, the deceased must have fell down and the rear wheel of the bus must be over-run on him. On the doctrine of preponderance of probability, I am of the opinion that the accident took place due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the bus conductor, and, the bus driver, and, there was no fault on the part of the deceased, and, as such, the respondent-owner, conductor and the driver of the bus in question, are liable to pay the compensation to the claimants because the deceased died in an accident which took place due to the rashness and negligence of the driver and the conductor of the bus. 8. No other point has been argued and pressed before me. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the amount of compensation as determined by the learned Tribunal to the claimants-appellants. The liability to pay the compensation shall be jointly and severally. The respondents shall also pay the interest on the amount of compensation determined by the learned Tribunal at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment of the entire amount. The award of the learned Tribunal shall stand modified accordingly.Appeal allowed. *******