JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act is at the instance of the owner of the vehicle, namely, Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation and is directed against the award dated December 31, 1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahals at Godhra in MAC Petition No.274 of 1990 thereby disposing of the proceeding under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 by awarding a sum of Rs.1,29,200/- as compensation for the death of a boy aged 11 years arising out of the accident where the bus owned by the appellant was involved. 2. Being dissatisfied, the owner of the bus has come up with the present appeal. 3. It appear from the record that the claimants are the parents of the victim aged 11 years who was struck by the bus owned by the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation at the bus depot while the bus was moving in reverse gear. The fact that the victim died of the accident where the bus was involved is not in dispute. According to the driver of the bus, the boy all of a sudden came from behind as a result due to contributory negligence on his part the accident occurred. 4. The Tribunal below on consideration of the materials on record awarded a sum of Rs.1,29,200/- as compensation under the following heads :- Rs. 96,000/- for loss of dependency benefit Rs. 20,000/- for loss of expectation of life Rs. 10,000/- for mental pain shock and suffering Rs. 3,000/- for death ceremony expenses Rs. 200/- for transportation charges Rs.1,29,200/- Total Being dissatisfied, the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has come up with this appeal. 5. Ms Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently contended before me that while arriving at the conclusion that the driver of the bus was fully negligent and responsible for the accident, the Tribunal below did not at all consider the evidence adduced by the driver and proceeded as if no evidence was adduced on behalf of her client to disprove the facts stated in the application. Ms Singh has taken me through the deposition of the driver of the vehicle and tried to convince me that in the facts of the present case I should hold that there was contributory negligence on the part of the victim. 6. Ms Singh has taken me through the deposition of the driver of the vehicle and tried to convince me that in the facts of the present case I should hold that there was contributory negligence on the part of the victim. 6. After hearing Ms Singh appearing on behalf of the appellant and after going through the materials on record, I find that there is no dispute that the death of the victim occurred due to accident where the vehicle in question was involved. It is also not in dispute that the accident occurred within the precinct of the bus depot while the bus was moving in reverse gear. 7. In my opinion, in the facts of the present case, particularly when the involved vehicle is a public transport vehicle, additional duty was cast upon the driver to see that while the bus was moving in reverse gear nobody came in the way towards which the bus was proceeding and if anybody came, to stop the bus immediately. Thus, in the present case, the conductor of the bus should have taken extra precaution to see that while the bus was driven in reverse gear and the driver had no occasion to see who were coming in the way of the bus. It is apparent that if such care was taken, the accident would not have occurred. In the present case, the appellant has not examined the conductor of the bus who was the best witness to prove whether there was really any contributory negligence on the part of the victim because the driver, the sole witness, for the appellant had no occasion to see who were passing in the way of the vehicle. 8. In my opinion, in the facts of the present case, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the appellant failed to prove that there was contributory negligence on the part of the victim. 9. As regards the amount of compensation, in my opinion, once it is held that a boy aged 11 years has been killed for the negligence of the driver of the bus, a sum of Rs.1,29,200/- cannot be said to be excessive so as to justify interference. 9. As regards the amount of compensation, in my opinion, once it is held that a boy aged 11 years has been killed for the negligence of the driver of the bus, a sum of Rs.1,29,200/- cannot be said to be excessive so as to justify interference. After the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 and with the introduction of Section 163A of the Act even without proving negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle in this type of a case, a claimant can legitimately claim a sum of Rs.1,35,000/-. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. 10. The appeal is devoid of any substance and is consequently dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.