Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.2.1997 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gaya in M.V. Claim Case No. 96 of 1993. 2. The facts relevant for this appeal are that one Mahipal Paswan was travelling in a bus bearing registration No. BPV 3285 on 11.5.1993 and he was going to Gaya. When the bus reached Bairia village, another bus bearing registration No. BHB 9231, came from the opposite side and dashed against the bus in which the deceased was travelling, smashing his head. He was subsequently brought to the hospital where he was declared dead. 3. Upon the evidence adduced, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased Mahipal Paswan died on account of his own contributory negligence because he was projecting his head outside the window of the bus in which he was travelling and passengers are normally not expected to project their heads outside the windows in order to avoid any injury by oncoming vehicles from the opposite direction. Against the judgment of the Tribunal, this appeal has been preferred and it was submitted by the appellants lawyer that in a motor vehicle accident case, negligence on the part of the victim is normally not the principle on which the claim case is founded. Negligence on the part of the offending vehicle is also not to be the criteria in calculating or deciding the compensation to be granted under the Motor Vehicles Act. Before I advert to the argument of the appellants lawyer, I would like to refer to the facts of this case in a further broader view. The F.I.R. of the case indicated that the accident took place when the deceased had projected his head outside the window of the bus to spit. Some eyewitnesses, who were fellow passengers, said that the deceased was sleeping and keeping his head on his hands when he was knocked down by speeding offending bus coming from opposite direction. So, there were contradictory statements of the eyewitnesses regarding the manner of the accident and as to at what point of time the deceased received injury upon his head. Post-mortem report, Exh. 2, shows that there were injuries upon the parietal region of the head of the deceased extending from the right eyebrow to the middle of the parietal middle region. Post-mortem report, Exh. 2, shows that there were injuries upon the parietal region of the head of the deceased extending from the right eyebrow to the middle of the parietal middle region. The parietal bone under the scalp was found fractured in multiple small pieces. Perhaps, there were injuries upon the hands also. That shows that the deceased received injuries upon his head as also hands. This is possible when a man projects his head outside the window of a bus to spit. I do not think that such injury can be possible when anybody keeps his head on the cushion of his hands to sleep because in such cases normally one would be expected to place his head on the folds of his hand in a moving bus. So, it appears that the alleged accident took place when the deceased had just peeped outside the window of the bus to spit. It further follows from the circumstances that the deceased was very careless and was not cautious to avoid being knocked down by oncoming vehicle from the other side. In such a circumstance, it was not possible for the driver of the bus in which the deceased was travelling to forewarn the passengers sitting behind him nor it was possible for the oncoming vehicle to forewarn the passengers not to keep their heads or any parts of the body outside the windows of the bus. It appears that negligence was apparent on the part of the deceased. It is a matter of common knowledge that rustics indulge in such nonchalant activities of spitting without taking proper care to avoid accident. It is also common habit of some unscrupulous persons to spit frequently without taking care not to spit on passers-by or to avoid accident from the vehicle coming from the opposite direction. From the circumstances on the record, it was apparent that there was, of course, negligence on the part of the deceased which resulted in his death. 4. Now the question is whether the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act can be granted to any victim of a motor accident without any finding of negligence on the part of the offending vehicle. 4. Now the question is whether the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act can be granted to any victim of a motor accident without any finding of negligence on the part of the offending vehicle. I am of the opinion that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act have not mandated that driver of the vehicle which causes the alleged accident is or would be responsible for any accident if he applied all possible care and caution in driving his vehicle and if the accident occurs on account of the negligence of the victim. If it were so, there was no necessity to make the provision for grant of a lump sum interim compensation amount u/s. 140 of the Act on the basis of no fault liability. If a person is granted lump sum amount on the basis of no fault liability of the offending vehicles driver, there was no necessity to make a further provision for further investigation into the claim case. If there would have been a total irrelevance of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle right away u/s. 140 itself total compensation amount would have been calculated on the basis of the principles laid down in calculating the compensation amount if, of course, the alleged accident would be admitted. Even under sec. 140 interim compensation is paid, if the alleged accident by particular motor vehicle is admitted or established by evidence. So, if negligence was not the basis for awarding a compensation amount to the victim of a motor vehicle accident, there was no necessity to provide for sec. 166 under the aforesaid Act for any further investigation. So, I am of the opinion that total absence of negligence on the part of the offending vehicle is not the premise on which the compensation amount is granted to the victim. Now it is to be decided whether in the instant case, the offending vehicle was negligent in driving the vehicle so as to cause the alleged accident. So, I am of the opinion that total absence of negligence on the part of the offending vehicle is not the premise on which the compensation amount is granted to the victim. Now it is to be decided whether in the instant case, the offending vehicle was negligent in driving the vehicle so as to cause the alleged accident. Of course, the witnesses examined in court said that the offending vehicle was in a high speed, but none of the witnesses had been able to say as to what was the width of the road on the accident site, so that the two vehicles passing in opposite direction would keep sufficient distance from each other in order to avoid coming into contact with each other. However, under the circumstances of the case itself if the deceased would have kept his head and hands inside the vehicle in which he was travelling, there would have been no chance of his receiving the alleged injury upon his head, even if the two vehicles passed each other at a very close distance from each other or even touching each other. So, from the aforesaid circumstances, it further follows that the alleged accident took place because the deceased projected his head outside the window of the bus in which he was travelling just to spit and received the injury upon his head from the bus of the opposite direction. There is no evidence either that from the front portion of the offending bus his head was smashed and so it appears that the driver of the offending bus did not deliberately cause any injury upon the victims head and if he sped passed and thereafter the victim projected his head being knocked down by the middle portion of the offending bus, it was on account of his own negligence that the alleged accident took place. Offending bus driver cannot be expected to see what is happening behind him so that he can curve the bus in order to avoid the accident. If the deceased would have been hit by the front portion of the bus it could be imagined that the driver of the offending vehicle sped passed the passive vehicle even after sighting the deceased taking his head out of the bus on the opposite side. But there is no such evidence. If the deceased would have been hit by the front portion of the bus it could be imagined that the driver of the offending vehicle sped passed the passive vehicle even after sighting the deceased taking his head out of the bus on the opposite side. But there is no such evidence. In all circumstances, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident took place on account of deceaseds contributory negligence or entirely on account of his own negligence, does not call for any interference by this court. 5. In the result, I am of the opinion that the judgment of the Tribunal does not necessitate any reverse by this court. Already the claimants had received Rs. 25,000 as interim compensation for no fault liability which the Tribunal had thought fit to be granted under the circumstances of this case. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of this appeal.