Judgment K.C. Sharma, J.-Through this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant seeks to quash the award dated 24.08.1998 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhalawar, whereby the learned Judge has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,96,000/-. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the award sought to be quashed. The learned Judge, on consideration of evidence and material available on record and having concluded that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of roadways bus No. RSB 7688 by its driver has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,96,000/-under the various heads, making the driver and the appellant corporation liable to pay the award amount to the claimants, jointly and severally. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant corporation has assailed the award on the ground that accident took place on account of negligence of injured claimant himself , inasmuch as the injured was not a bona fide passenger and he boarded the bus without ticket. Therefore, the claimant was not entitled to claim any compensation. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above argument. As stated above, the learned Tribunal has concluded that the accident took place on account of negligence and carelessness of the driver in driving the bus. In doing so, the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration every aspect of the matter including the FIR lodged by injured Bheem Singh and the charge-sheet submitted by the police after completion of investigation. 5. From the evidence and material it appears that on 22.06.1990, the injured claimant boarded bus No. RSB 7688 belong to the appellant Corporation, which was coming from Jhalawar. The passengers were already there in the bus. When the said bus stopped at Check post Munderi, the injured boarded in the bus and 2-3 persons also boarded after him. It is further evident that the driver started the bus without blowing horn and without shutting the door. Despite alarm to stop the bus and to shut the door having been raised by the injured and others, driver did not stop the bus and went on plying. Since the door of the bus was open, the bus started wavering, as a result of which the injured fell down and the back wheel of the bus passed over his legs. Since the door of the bus was open, the bus started wavering, as a result of which the injured fell down and the back wheel of the bus passed over his legs. So far as argument that injured was travelling in the bus without paying fair, suffice it to observe that as per the practice prevalent at the relevant time was that conductor used to issue tickets to the passengers in the bus itself and that conductor, at the relevant time, was issuing tickets to the passengers already sitting in the bus and no occasion had arisen to issue ticket to the injured since he had recently entered the bus. For the reasons, therefore, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 6. The next argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant as to the quantum of compensation being on higher side also has no legs to stand. The injured was a Govt. servant and after permanent disability on account of the accident he was made to retire/removed from service 10 years prior to his superannuation. In my considered view, the learned Tribunal after considering the evidence both ocular and documentary has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 1,96,000/-in the following manner:- 1. For loss of income for the period from 22.06.1990 to 210.1990 Rs. 6,000. 2. Expenditure on medicine, for staying at Kota, diet etc. Rs. 25,000/- 3. Pain and suffering Rs. 75,000/- 4. For loss of future income due to permanent disability Rs. 90,000/- 7. The aforesaid amount of compensation, in my firm view cannot be said to be on higher side. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal has no merit and accordingly the same is dismissed.