BHAWANI SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Seoni, in Claim case No. 38 of 1996, dated 8. 5. 1998. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, Prakash (deceased)was a newspaper hawker. He was studying in the IX class. He was 15 years old on the date of the accident which took place on 1. 4. 1996, at 8 a. m. at Chhui Bus Stand (Seoni ). While he was taking out the bundles of newspaper from the bus, suddenly 1025 the driver moved it as a result of which he fell down and rear tyres ran over his legs. He was shifted to hospital where he died on the next day. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS denied the claim. They state that the deceased was in the habit of getting into the bus without permission of the driver who had been asking him not to do so. On the date of accident, he was trying to catch hold of the handle of the door which he could not and fell down resulting in the injuries. He himself was responsible for the injuries and ultimate death. Insurance company alleges that the driver did not possess valid driving licence for driving the vehicle, therefore, committed breach of the policy conditions; the driver was not negligent; the deceased was trying to get into the bus and fell down. ( 4 ) CLAIMS Tribunal, after recording evidence, held that deceased did not suffer injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the bus; of course he suffered injuries and died as a result thereof. He himself was negligent. Driver possessed valid driving licence and the claimant is not entitled to compensation. Consequently, claim has been rejected. ( 5 ) THROUGH this appeal, the surviving claimant Kalabai (Bhishmsingh, father having died during the pendency of this appeal) submits that the award of Claims tribunal is liable to be set aside and just compensation awarded in her favour. ( 6 ) MRS. Divya Keerti V. Bohrey submits that the Claims Tribunal has not considered the evidence correctly, therefore, wrong finding has been recorded in the case. ( 6 ) MRS. Divya Keerti V. Bohrey submits that the Claims Tribunal has not considered the evidence correctly, therefore, wrong finding has been recorded in the case. It is further submitted that deceased was a student of IX class, therefore, after completing his studies, would have got some reasonable employment, he was hard-working since he was earning by sale of newspapers, apart from working in a hotel; thus the family at the time of accident, could depend on him later in life. ( 7 ) DECEASED was moving through the bus quite often with newspaper bundles, therefore, the driver and conductor knew him; he was a passenger like others in the bus who get in or go out according to their destinations, therefore, heavy duty is cast on the driver and conductor to see that the bus moves after it is ensured that all the passengers have got into the bus or have gone out safely and the doors are properly closed. Moving the bus while passenger (s)is/are in the process of moving in or moving out is a negligent act. In this case, deceased was in the process of getting down. He was to take care, apart from getting down himself, of bundles of newspaper, which could take some time. This should have been taken care of by the driver and conductor of the bus before moving the bus. Consequently, he fell down and the bus came over his legs resulting in his death. ( 8 ) CLAIMS Tribunal has relied on the evidence of Mushtaque Khan, but this witness is ignorant about the boarding of the bus by the deceased. Therefore, he is not of much help to the respondents. Further, defence that respondents were not at fault and as a matter of fact he was at fault has not been substantiated by the respondents. First information report, Exh. P-l, does not state that the deceased was at fault. Therefore, it is held that the driver of the bus was negligent in moving the bus before the deceased could get down from the bus. Therefore, finding recorded by the Claims tribunal is set aside. ( 9 ) NEXT question for consideration is, what compensation the claimant is entitled to? Of course, the evidence suggests that the deceased was studying in the IX class, 1026 working as newspaper hawker, working in a hotel and earning Rs. Therefore, finding recorded by the Claims tribunal is set aside. ( 9 ) NEXT question for consideration is, what compensation the claimant is entitled to? Of course, the evidence suggests that the deceased was studying in the IX class, 1026 working as newspaper hawker, working in a hotel and earning Rs. 500 p. m. But there is no definite evidence with respect to his income as a newspaper hawker. Basically he was a student. Therefore, compensation should be assessed as a non-earner. Consequently, it is taken that he was earning rs. 15,000 per year. After deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses, annual dependency comes to Rs. 10,000 x 15 = 1,50,000 plus Rs. 7,000 for loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 2,500 for loss to estate, rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, Rs. 2,500 for medicines and transport since he died on the next day of the accident in the hospital where expenditure on medicines, transport, etc. , had to be incurred. Father of the deceased has also said that he had to spend Rs. 500 and Rs. 2,000 for medicines and transport respectively. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal is allowed, award is set aside and claimant Kalabai is awarded compensation of Rs. 1,64,000 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application, i. e. , 25. 9. 1996 till payment. The payment shall be made by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , Circle Office, Seoni, with which the vehicle was insured, within two months. Costs on parties. Appeal allowed. .