JUDGMENT : Pradeep Nandrajog, J. 1. Injured Vijay Nath Tiwari aged 22 years received injuries in a road accident which took place on 18.10.1996. He filed a claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 on account of injuries sustained by him in the said road accident. 2. The case of the injured is that on 18.10.1996 he boarded a D.T.C. bus bearing No. DBP 6136. He further stated that while he was in the process of alighting from the bus, the driver of the bus, in a rash and negligent manner, started the bus as a result thereof he fell down from the bus resulting in a fracture of his left hand. 3. Holding that the injured was himself responsible for the accident, the claim petition has been dismissed by the Tribunal. In so holding, Tribunal has noted DD entry No. 21A dated 18.10.1996. The said DD entry was purportedly recorded on the basis of the statement of injured. The DD entry records that when driver of the bus did not stop the bus at the bus stand where injured was to get down, injured immediately jumped from the front gate of the moving bus and as a result of which injured had fallen on the road and sustained injury on his hand. DD entry further records that there was no mistake on part of the driver of the bus. 4. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal in dismissing his claim petition, injured has filed the present appeal. 5. The learned Counsel for the injured contended that Tribunal had not correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has wrongly come to the conclusion that the accident in question was caused due to negligence of the injured. 6. Injured examined himself as PW 2 to establish that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The driver of the bus, Surender, examined himself as RW 1 to establish that the accident in question was caused solely due to negligence of injured. Besides the testimony of aforenoted witnesses, there is no other evidence to suggest the manner in which the accident in question took place. However, the DD entry in question is a pointer indicating the manner in which the accident in question took place. Besides the testimony of aforenoted witnesses, there is no other evidence to suggest the manner in which the accident in question took place. However, the DD entry in question is a pointer indicating the manner in which the accident in question took place. As noted hereinabove, said DD entry was recorded on the basis of statement of injured and records that the injured jumped out of the moving bus. 7. It is a relevant fact that said DD entry was recorded nearly 12 hours after the accident took place. DD entry also records that injured was examined by the police officials only when he was declared fit for examination by the doctor who was treating him. 8. On being confronted with the said DD entry during cross-examination, injured stated that said DD entry has been wrongly recorded as he had stated to the police officials that accident in question was caused when driver of the bus started the bus in a rash and negligent manner while he was in the process of alighting from the bus. He stated that police officials did not record his statement and obtained his signatures on a blank paper. 9. It is difficult to believe the stand taken by the injured. The fact that said DD entry was recorded few hours after the accident leads to an inference that injured stated the truth when he gave his statement to the police officials who recorded the DD entry. It is difficult to believe that police officials distorted the statement of injured and recorded false DD entry at the instance of the driver of the bus. It is difficult to believe that police officials were manipulated by the driver of the bus. 10. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly relied upon the aforenoted DD entry in coming to the conclusion that the injured jumped out of the moving bus. 11. However, the Tribunal is not right in holding that the accident in question was caused solely due to negligence of the injured. 12. It is the duty of the driver and the conductor of the bus to ensure that the passenger stand inside the bus and not on the footboard of the bus. 11. However, the Tribunal is not right in holding that the accident in question was caused solely due to negligence of the injured. 12. It is the duty of the driver and the conductor of the bus to ensure that the passenger stand inside the bus and not on the footboard of the bus. It is the duty of the owner of a passenger bus more so, of a bus plying within a city to install a movable devise which closes the exit gate and is operated by the driver to open the exit gate by causing the devise to move. A lever operated mechanism akin to turnstile gate has to be installed in an intra-city passenger bus. The reason is that state of public transport is not too happy. More often than not, excess passengers board the bus. There is pushing and jostling inside the bus. 13. Thus, I hold that the owner of the bus is guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 50 per cent. 14. In respect of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss to the injured deposed that his left hand got fractured on account of injuries sustained by him in the said road accident. 15. Treatment record Exhs. PW2/2 to PW2/4 shows that the injured suffered a fracture of the humerus bone of left hand. 16. Injured has also placed on record a disability certificate, Exh. PW2/11. The disability certificate records that injured had suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 55 per cent. The said certificate is issued by an orthopaedic surgeon and eye surgeon. I see no reason as to why said certificate was issued by an eye surgeon for the reason that kind of injury sustained by the injured is such which is outside the purview of the eye surgeon. Even otherwise, it is difficult to believe that because of a fracture of the left hand, the injured has suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 55 per cent. 17. Treatment record filed by injured does not suggest that on account of injury on left hand suffered by the injured, he has suffered a loss in his earning capacity. 18. However, considering that left hand of the injured got fractured in the accident and his contribution was 50 per cent, I consider reasonable to award him compensation in sum of Rs. 10,000. 18. However, considering that left hand of the injured got fractured in the accident and his contribution was 50 per cent, I consider reasonable to award him compensation in sum of Rs. 10,000. The same would be towards pain and suffering and medical expenses. 19. The appeal stands disposed of by awarding compensation of Rs. 10,000 to the injured. 20. The compensation shall be paid together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from date of claim petition till date of realisation. No costs.