Judgment :- Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Corporation is the appellant herein. 2. Being aggrieved by the award, directing the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 45,000/- to the respondent herein, mainly on the ground of negligence, the appellant has presented this appeal. 3. The claimant, the respondent herein, was studying in the Engineering College at Karaikudi. On 2-7-1991 at about 8.15 a.m., he got into the bus TML 2256 at Pandian Theatre Bus Stop, which belonged to the appellant-Corporation in order to go to the Engineering College. When the bus was nearing the CECRI bus stop, the driver of the bus, who drove the bus at a very great speed, in a rash and negligent manner, applied the sudden brake. The claimant, who was standing near the front door mumbled down from the steps and fell down on the ground. He sustained injury due to this. He was taken to the Government Hospital at Karaikudi. Thereafter, he was admitted in the Madurai Rajaji Hospital. He was inpatient for about one month. Brain operation was conducted on him. Due to the accident, he did not write the examination, consequently he failed. Towards the damages, the claimant filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs. 85,000/-. 4. The appellant-Corporation, through its counter, stated that the claimant sustained injury not due to the negligent driving of the driver, but the claimant was standing in the foot-board in the moving bus and due to sudden epilepsy attack, he fell down and sustained injury. 5. In the enquiry, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and Doctor Manoharan as PW.2. Exs. A1 to A5 were marked on behalf of the claimant. 6. On the side of the appellant-Corporation, the driver-RW.1 and three other passengers who travelled at the time of the accident were examined. 7. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of the materials, concluded that the driver of the bus was negligent and awarded the compensation of Rs. 45,000/- as against the total compensation of Rs. 85,000/-claimed. This award is the subject matter of the challenge in this appeal before this Court. 8. Mr. Pandi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would make the following contentions :— “The injured-claimant was suffering from epilepsy at the time of the accident and because of the same, he fell down from the moving bus. 85,000/-claimed. This award is the subject matter of the challenge in this appeal before this Court. 8. Mr. Pandi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would make the following contentions :— “The injured-claimant was suffering from epilepsy at the time of the accident and because of the same, he fell down from the moving bus. Even on the own admission of the injured-claimant, he was standing on the steps of the bus, due to the crowd inside the bus. He fell down from the bus even before it came to a halt. The evidence of RWs.2 to 4, the passengers, who are independent witnesses, would clinchingly show that the claimant alone was responsible for the accident. Therefore, the judgment of the Tribunal awarding compensation is liable to be set aside.” 9. In support of the above submissions, he would cite the decision reported in 1986 ACJ 55 ( Kumar Mohamed Rafique v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ) of Bombay High Court (Division Bench). 10. On the other hand, Mr. Venugopal, learned counsel for the claimant, respondent herein, would submit as follows:— “The reasonings given by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment for rejecting the evidences of RWs.1 to 4 are valid and correct. According to PW.1, the claimant, the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and brake was applied suddenly near the bus stop and when he was standing in front of the door, out of the jolt, he had to fall down and sustain a brain injury where the operation was conducted. When the next stop is Engineering College and when there is a crowd, there is no other way for PW.1 to come to the front side of the door and to stand in the foot-board.” 11. Learned counsel for the respondent would also cite the following authorities:— “1. (1981) II M.L.J. 181= 94 L.W. 93 ( Pallavan Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Gowri ) and 2. 1972 A.C.J. 423 ( DelhiTransport Undertaking v. Krishnawamti).” 12. I have carefully considered the submissions and meticulously gone through the evidence. 13. At the outset, I shall mention that in the complaint which has been given by the victim claimant Ex. (1981) II M.L.J. 181= 94 L.W. 93 ( Pallavan Transport Corpn. Ltd. v. Gowri ) and 2. 1972 A.C.J. 423 ( DelhiTransport Undertaking v. Krishnawamti).” 12. I have carefully considered the submissions and meticulously gone through the evidence. 13. At the outset, I shall mention that in the complaint which has been given by the victim claimant Ex. A1, which was registered at 11.30 a.m. for the accident that took place at 8.30 a.m. on the same date, he had stated that when the Town Bus was nearing the CECRI bus stop, the driver of the bus, who was driving in a very high speed, suddenly applied the brake to stop in the bus stop and since there is a crowd, he was standing in the foot-board in the front door and due to the sudden jolt, he fell down a nd became unconscious even before the bus stopped. The exact wordings are as follows:— Tamil This is the earliest document which is available on record. 14. The claimant, PW.1, would state in his evidence that when the Town Bus which came near the CECRI bus stop, the driver of the bus suddenly applied the brake and that since he was standing near the foot-board, he was thrown out of the bus and then he sustained injuries and became unconscious. The exact wordings are these:— Tamil In the cross-examination, he would state that there was a crowd in the bus and that he was not travelling in the foot-board and he had to get down from the bus in the Engineering College stop. The exact wordings are as follows:— Tamil 15. On reading the contents of the F.I.R. and the deposition given by the PW.1, it is clear that the PW.1 was consistent in his stand that he fell down from the bus due to the rash act of the driver who applied sudden brake, when the bus was driven by him at high speed. The only suggestion put to PW.1 in the cross-examination is that since he was travelling in the foot-board and he got down at the bus stop even before the bus reached the bus stop, he fell down and sustained injuries. This was denied by PW. 1. 16. The only suggestion put to PW.1 in the cross-examination is that since he was travelling in the foot-board and he got down at the bus stop even before the bus reached the bus stop, he fell down and sustained injuries. This was denied by PW. 1. 16. Curiously, the stand taken by the appellant-Corporation in the counter was that while the driver was driving the vehicle in a moderate speed, the claimant-victim was travelling in the front foot-board despite the warning given by the conductor not to travel in the foot-board, he suddenly fell down from the slowly moving bus due to the epilepsy disease and sustained the injuries. This defence plea has not been suggested to PW.1. 17. RW.1, the driver, was examined. According to him, before the bus was stopped at the CECRI bus stop, the passengers and conductor raised a hue and cry, therefore, he stopped the bus and went and found that the PW.1 was attacked by epilepsy and foam was coming out of the mouth. He would specifically state that (Tamil) document has been marked, as Ex. Rl. According to RW.1, Ex. Rl was written by the conductor who was not examined. This is the letter written by the passengers to the Manager of the Marudhu Pandiyar Transport Corporation informing that the victim-claimant sustained injury due to the epilepsy fit and that the driver and conductor were not in any way responsible for the accident. These are the exact words:— Tamil According to this document, the victim-claimant was inside the bus and he fell down from the bus due to the epilepsy fit. There is no reference about the foot-board travelling or the warning given by the conductor to the claimant not to travel in the foot-board. 18. RW.2 to 4 were the signatories in the Ex. Rl. RW.2 would state in the evidence that PW.1 was travelling in the foot-board and after alighting some people at CECRI stop, the bus was going slowly and at that time, the PW.1 had an epilepsy attack and fell down on the ground and that when they put an iron material on his hand, he became alright. RW.3 also would state that PW.1 was travelling in the foot-board and got an epilepsy and the bus was stopped and that PW. 1 fell down. RW.3 also would state that PW.1 was travelling in the foot-board and got an epilepsy and the bus was stopped and that PW. 1 fell down. This witness did not refer a bout putting the iron material into the hand of PW. 1 and he would also admit that there is heavy crowd and lot of persons were standing in the foot-board. RW.4 would also state that there is a lot of crowd inside the bus. But he would state that the conductor warned the PW.1 not to travel in the foot-board. But, nobody heeded his words. The exact wordings are as follows:— Tamil It is quite relevant in this context to note that the warning given by the conductor has not been spoken to by any of the witnesses. One witness would state that the bus was stopped at CECRI bus stop and again moved. Another witness would state that before stopping at the CECRI bus stop, the accident took place. No doubt, this document is dated 2-7-1991. According to RW. 1, the author of the document is the conductor. As stated earlier, the conductor was not examined. Even assuming that this document can be acted upon, as indicated earlier, the contents of Ex. Rl are not in consonance with the deposition made by RWs.1 to RW.4. In Ex. Rl, as pointed out earlier, there is no reference about the foot-board travelling or alleged warning. 19. In the light of these contradictions, I am unable to accept the defence plea. 20. No doubt, it is true that PW.1 would state in the F.I.R. that he was standing in the foot-board In the evidence, he would state that he was standing near the front door. 21. Even assuming that he was standing in the foot-board, that cannot be the criterian to hold that there is no negligence on the part of the driver or there is a contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. According to PW.1, the victim, he was standing in the door-way or near about it. It is a specific case of the PW. 1 that near the bus stop, the driver of the bus, while driving at a high speed, applied the brake and attempted to stop the bus at the bus stop. Due to the sudden brake and jolt, the victim fell down on the ground. It is a specific case of the PW. 1 that near the bus stop, the driver of the bus, while driving at a high speed, applied the brake and attempted to stop the bus at the bus stop. Due to the sudden brake and jolt, the victim fell down on the ground. If this is accepted, then there is no difficulty in concluding that there is a negligence on the part of the bus driver in applying the sudden brake near the bus stop, even though the bus was driven in a great speed. Even assuming that he was standing in the foot-board, as has been pointed out earlier, even the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant-Corporation would state that there were many passengers including the claimant, travelling in the foot-board. 22. The owner of the Travel Bus who invites passengers to travel in his vehicle for hire is under obligation to take all passengers safe to the destination. He takes the risk of accident to the passengers resulting from their exposure to the hazardous situation. The owner of the vehicle has to definitely take the risk of the passengers falling from the bus through the door-way on account of losing their balance due to the jerk or otherwise. The risk of such accidents occurring is always there, and the owner of the vehicle must be fastened with the knowledge that such risk is always involved. This is the observation made by the Bombay High Court in 1986 ACJ 55 (cited supra). 23. Regarding the duty of the drivers, the Apex Court and this Court in 1972 ACJ 423 (cited supra) and 1997-1-L.W. 369 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S.A. Zylopthin and 2 others ) specifically observed that it is the duty of the drivers of the public buses to take all steps which a person of ordinary prudence would take, to ensure the safety of the passengers. 24. Even according to RWs.1 to 4, there were several passengers standing in the footboard in a moving bus. In such a situation, it is the duty of the driver and conductor to take reasonable care that the passengers travelling in the bus did not receive injuries during the journey. 24. Even according to RWs.1 to 4, there were several passengers standing in the footboard in a moving bus. In such a situation, it is the duty of the driver and conductor to take reasonable care that the passengers travelling in the bus did not receive injuries during the journey. To achieve this object, it is necessary for the driver to stop the bus and ask the passengers who were standing in the foot-board either to go inside or if no space is available, to get out from the bus. 25. In this context, the observation of this Court in the decision reported in (1981) II M.L.J. (D.B.) 181 (cited supra) is quite relevant and the same is as follows:— “7. Even if the deceased had travelled on the foot board of the bus, he cannot be taken to have contributed to the accident by his negligence. The deceased can be taken to have contributed to the accident by his negligence only if the accident had occurred as a result of his foot board travel. On the admitted facts of this case, we are not inclined to hold that by merely standing on the foot board the deceased had contributed to the accident by his negligence. Even though the deceased had travelled by standing on the footboard, the accident could have been averted, if the driver had driven the bus without rashness or negligence.” 26. In my view, the above observation would apply to the present case since in the instant case also it cannot be said that by merely standing on the foot board, the victim had contributed in the accident. 27. While rejecting the case of the appellant-Corporation projected through RWs.1 to 4, in view of the various infirmities pointed out earlier, mis Court has no hesitation to accept the case of PW.1 who would state that only because of the sudden brake, he had to fall down and sustain injuries. Therefore, there is no question of contributory negligence on the part of the victim-claimant, as in my view, the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of me bus driver. 28. As the finding of the Tribunal in regard to the negligence is correct, this appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 29. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.