JUDGMENT Jaspal Singh, J. - This judgment shall dispose of two appeals viz. FAO No.1039 of 2001 and FAO No.2085 of 2000 as they are outcome of MACT No.10 of 1998 titled 'Sawaran Singh v. Sahab Singh & others' whereby learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagadhri (for brevity, 'Tribunal'), vide Award dated May 16, 2000, has allowed the claim petition and claimant has been awarded a sum of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 12 % per annum and respondent Nos.2 to 4 have been held liable to pay the same. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on October 21, 1997 at about 2:00 PM, claimant was going on his tractor No.HR-02/6431. In the way at Chahron road (Jagadhri - Bilaspur road), one Naib Singh son of Rai Singh took lift and sat on the mudguard of his tractor. At about 2:30 PM, when they reached on culvert of village Jaroda, Haryana Roadways Bus bearing registration No.HR-02A/3390, driven by respondent No.1 Sahab Singh in a rash and negligent manner came from Jagadhri side. It gave a short turn all of a sudden, due to which, wooden doors placed on roof of bus with the consent of the conductor, belonging to a passenger, Mittar Sain (respondent No.3), fell down on right leg of Sawaran Singh. As a result of this incident, he received multiple injuries on his back and right leg below knee joint. Injured was admitted in hospital of Dr. Kohli at Jagadhri where he remained admitted till October 31, 1997. His right leg was operated upon. 3. Injured - Sawaran Singh preferred a claim petition which was resisted by the respondents. Issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties were framed and parties were afforded opportunity to lead evidence. 4. After hearing learned counsel for parties and perusing evidence/documents available on file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation in favour of injured - claimant holding respondent No.2 (Satish Kumar) conductor of offending bus, respondent No.3 (Mittar Sain), owner of wooden doors, and respondent No.4 (State of Haryana - Department of Transport) owner of bus in question, liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. 5. Aggrieved against impugned award, passenger - Mittar Sain (owner of wooden doors) has preferred FAO No.1039 of 2001 and Haryana State, Department of Transport, Haryana, has preferred FAO No. 2085 of 2000. 6. 5. Aggrieved against impugned award, passenger - Mittar Sain (owner of wooden doors) has preferred FAO No.1039 of 2001 and Haryana State, Department of Transport, Haryana, has preferred FAO No. 2085 of 2000. 6. While assailing the impugned award, learned counsel for appellant in FAO No.1039 of 2001 has argued that offending bus belongs to Haryana State and it was the duty of conductor of offending bus to tie wooden door frames properly. Infact, wooden door frames did not belong to him, even then, liability to pay compensation has been fastened upon him. Learned Tribunal has erred in absolving liability of respondent No.2 - driver, who was driving the bus in rash and negligent manner. Since, wooden door frames were lying on roof of offending bus, it becomes the liability of driver, conductor and its owner (Department of Transport, Haryana) to pay compensation to injured - claimant, while, appellant herein was only a passenger. Even otherwise, compensation awarded to respondent No.1 - claimant is on higher side. Thus, impugned award deserves to be set aside qua him by way of acceptance of this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for appellant - State of Haryana, in FAO No.2085 of 2000 has argued that Sahab Singh - driver of offending bus, was driving it at a slow speed and no accident occurred with the bus in question. Moreover, he did not allow anyone to put luggage/articles on roof of bus and it was not within his knowledge that wooden door frames were lying on roof of bus. Thus, instant appeal deserved to be allowed by setting aside impugned award. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - claimant, has submitted that compensation awarded by learned Tribunal is absolutely unjust and inadequate which deserves to be modified by way of enhancement. However, since liability to pay compensation upon the appellant has been rightly fastened keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence available on file and latest proposition of law, no interference of this Court is justified in impugned award to that extent. Both appeals deserve to be dismissed with costs. 9. This Court has given an anxious thought to submissions made by learned counsel for parties and gone through record. 10. Both appeals deserve to be dismissed with costs. 9. This Court has given an anxious thought to submissions made by learned counsel for parties and gone through record. 10. As far as FAO No. 1309 of 2001 preferred by appellant - Mittar Sain is concerned, though, he has denied ownership of wooden doors/frames which fell from roof of bus and resultantly caused injuries to Sawaran Singh. Bus, except his bald assertion in this regard, there is no other evidence. Moreover, statement of Sawaran Singh to this effect is self serving one and much reliance cannot be placed upon it. Even otherwise, case of respondent No.1, driver of offending bus, as set up in written statement is that wooden doors/frames placed on roof of bus was not within his knowledge and was not placed in his presence. As such, he cannot be held responsible for occurrence, if any. Moreover, it was duty of owner of goods or that of conductor to place the same on roof of bus safely and rightly. It has also emerged on record that even a criminal case has also been registered against conductor of bus in respect of accident in question. Case of conductor is that it was placed on roof of bus by Mittar Sain without his consent. So, it is abundantly clear that Mittar Sain was owner of wooden doors/frames. 11. Now the question which survives for consideration is whether liability to pay compensation can be fastened upon owner of goods and answer to this question is in the negative. He must have placed wooden doors/frames on roof top of bus with consent of conductor, against whom, a criminal case has also been registered and it was duty of conductor to keep and tie wooden material safely and properly. If any negligence has occurred that can be attributed on the part of conductor and not on the part of owner of goods. 12. As far as driver of the bus is concerned, he has been rightly absolved from his liability to pay compensation as he was not aware about placing of wooden doors/frames on roof of bus and bus was also being not driven in such a rash and negligent manner that it struck against any vehicle or against trees on road side. Rather, just on the turning, wooden doors/frames fell down which caused injuries to Sawaran Singh. Rather, just on the turning, wooden doors/frames fell down which caused injuries to Sawaran Singh. So, this Court is of the considered view that appeal preferred by Mittar Sain, owner of goods, deserves to be allowed/accepted and he stands absolved from liability to pay compensation fastened upon him by learned Tribunal. 13. Now coming to FAO No.2085 of 2000 preferred by State of Haryana, Department of Transport i.e. owner of alleged offending bus. Contention of learned State counsel is that learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate evidence brought on record by State of Haryana, especially, statement of driver who has categorically stated that bus was driven by him at a normal speed and no accident was taken place with bus in question. It has further been deposed by him that wooden doors/frames placed on roof of bus were not within his knowledge and he has not allowed anyone to put luggage/articles on roof of bus. 14. Admittedly, driver cannot be accepted to know loading or unloading of goods on roof top of bus and it was duty of conductor to see whether goods loaded on roof of bus have been tied properly and are in a safe condition to carry. Conductor of bus allowed Mittar Sain, owner of goods, to load same on roof and while driving bus, on a turning, since wooden doors/frames were untied, they fell on the leg of Sawaran Singh which resulted into causing injuries. Conductor is also an employee of State of Haryana who can be termed to be responsible for same and State of Haryana is liable to satisfy award. This Court does not find any merit in instant appeal preferred by State of Haryana. Accordingly, same stands dismissed. 15. As a net result of aforesaid discussion, FAO No. 1039 of 2001 preferred by Mittar Sain - owner of goods, is allowed, whereas FAO No.2085 of 2000 preferred by State of Haryana - owner of offending bus, is dismissed. 16. No order as to costs.