VERMA KOCHAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 31. 8. 1995 passed by M. A. C. T. , Jaora (Ratlam) in m. V. Case No. 98 of 1994, whereby the claim of the appellant for injuries sustained by her in a motor accident has been rejected. ( 2 ) THE appellant, aged about 35 years was travelling in a bus between Badnagar and Kalukheda. While travelling so in the said bus, she felt the sensation of vomiting and thus peeped out for vomiting. In the meanwhile a truck being driven by respondent No. 1, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3, came head of claimant. She sustained fracture of the occipital bone and injuries on other parts of the head. ( 3 ) THE appellant-claimant preferred a claim petition. The same has been rejected on the ground that the driver of the bus should have been more careful while crossing the other vehicle coming from opposite direction, the claimant was partly responsible for the said accident and the insurance of the truck was not proved. ( 4 ) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, we find that the claim of the claimant was rejected erroneously. As far as the last ground is concerned, a copy of the policy was supplied to the counsel for respondent No. 3 by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who after verification has found that the vehicle in question, at the relevant point of time, was insured with it. Now the question is, whether the driver of the bus was negligent in driving the vehicle in such a fashion that the vehicle coming from the opposite direction had hit the claimant. It is a matter of common knowledge that the road conditions are not so good. Neither they are broad enough so as to enable the driver to leave enough space for the other vehicle coming from opposite direction to pass. Secondly, on account of sudden sensation of vomiting the claimant had peeped out of the window which could not have been anticipated by the driver of the vehicle driving the bus in which the claimant was travelling. Thus, in any case the driver of the bus cannot be held rash or negligent in driving the vehicle. Secondly, on account of sudden sensation of vomiting the claimant had peeped out of the window which could not have been anticipated by the driver of the vehicle driving the bus in which the claimant was travelling. Thus, in any case the driver of the bus cannot be held rash or negligent in driving the vehicle. In fact, the driver of the truck should have been vigilant as he was able to see the claimant more distinctly. Not having done so, we have no doubt in our mind, that the truck in question was being driven rashly and negligently. ( 5 ) IT has been proved that the claimant had suffered fracture of her occipital bone. She had also received some other injuries. For all these injuries sustained by her we deem it fit and proper to award a lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000 to the claimant. This amount shall also carry interest at the rate of 1 per cent per annum from the date of the claim petition till it is actually paid. ( 6 ) THE appeal is, therefore, allowed to the extent mentioned above with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000, if certified. Appeal allowed. .