Judgment :- A. Lekshmikutty, J. Against the award in O. P. (MV) No.122 of 1994 on the filed of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Punalur, this appeal is preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner filed the O.P. for grant of compensation on account of the injury sustained to him in a motor accident which occurred on 4.6.1992 at about 10.30 P.M. The petitioner was traveling as a passenger in the KSRTC Bus NO. KLX 4728 (S.140) from Kottarakkara to Kampancodu. When the bus reached at Cheruvalloor, the driver of the bus took the vehicle to the extreme wrong side of the bus and onaccount of the same a branch of cashenut tree hit on the face of the petitioner. Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained very serious injureies affecting his both eyes. The petitioner was treated as an inpatient in the Government Hospital, Kottarakkara. He was under treatment for one year. The petitioner was only 38 years old at the time of accident. He was a heavy vehicle driver earning an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained the petitioner is permanently disabled and unable to proceed with his job. The petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.65,000/- as compensation form the respondents. 2. The respondents filed written statement contending that the petitioner sustained only minor injuries. The accident happened due to the negligence of the petitioner since the petitioner laid his face outside the body of the bus when it was moved. Therefore, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation. 3. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW-1 and documentary evidence Exts. A1 to A7. The Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that the injury sustained is due to the negligence of the petitioner. 4. Against the said judgment, this appeal is preferred by the petitioner. The only point to be considered is whether there is any reason to set aside the award.The fact that the petitioner sustained injury while he was traveling in the KSRTC bus No. KLX 4728 (S. 140) is admitted by the respondent is that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner. The allegation in the petition is that while the petitioner was traveling in the bus from Kottarakkara to Kampancodu due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the accident occurred. The allegation in the petition is that while the petitioner was traveling in the bus from Kottarakkara to Kampancodu due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, the accident occurred. As per the petitioner the driver of the vehicle took the vehicle to the extreme wrong side of the bus and on account of that, a branch of the cashewnut tree hit on the face of the petitioner and he sustained serious injuries. The respondent has not gone to the box to swear to the negligence. On the other hand, the petitioner gave evidence as PW-1 and specifically stated the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent. The driver of a vehicle owes a duty of care for the safety of passengers traveling in the bus. He is duty bound to see that the passengers did not receive any injury during the course of the journey. So, the finding of the court below that the negligence occurred since the petitioner put his face outside the bus is unsustainable. In the circumstances, I am constrained to set aside the finding of the tribunal regarding negligence and find that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent driver. The case is remanded to the learned Tribunal for fixing the quantum. The Tribunal shall dispose of the case as early as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of the records. The Registry is directed to send the records immediately.