JUDGMENT : Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J. This Appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant assailing the Award, dt.17.12.2017, in MVOP.No.769 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-The Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), by which the claim of the appellant seeking compensation was dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal. Brief facts of the case: 3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 18.07.2015. On the fateful day, while the claimant was proceeding in a RTC Bus bearing registration No.AP 11 Z 7004 from Koti, Osmania Medical College, towards Abids, and on the bus reaching GPO at Abids, the claimant while alighting the bus fell down as the driver drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, due to which his left hand came under the bus tyre and was crushed and broken, and also the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the incident, the claimant was shifted to Kamineni Hospital and admitted as an inpatient and got treatment, pursuant to which, the police, Abids Road P.S., Hyderabad, registered a case in Crime No.231 of 2015 against the driver of TSRTC and conducted investigation. 4. The claimant contended that as on the date of incident, he was aged about 36 years and working as Home Guard on contract basis and earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. and that on account of grievous and fracture injuries sustained by him, he was confined to bed rest and could not perform his duties and lost his employment. It is further contended that the respondents being the State Road Transport Corporation were jointly responsible for the acts of its driver in causing the accident, and are liable to compensate the claimant for the injuries sustained by him. 5. The respondents filed counter before the Tribunal contending that the claimant was himself responsible for the injuries sustained by him, as he got down the moving bus, as such stated that the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation. 6. 5. The respondents filed counter before the Tribunal contending that the claimant was himself responsible for the injuries sustained by him, as he got down the moving bus, as such stated that the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation. 6. The Tribunal has framed the following issues: “1) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner, S.Dakya, due to rash and negligent driving of TSRTC bearing registration No.AP11 Z 7004, by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? 3) To what relief?” 7. Before the Tribunal, the claimant himself examined as PW1 and also examined PW2 to PW4, and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 and Exs.X1 and X2. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 8. The Tribunal after elaborate hearing and enquiry dismissed the claim of the claimant, holding that the accident has not occurred due to the rash and negligent acts of the driver of the RTC Bus and on the other hand held that the claimant himself was at fault for getting down from moving bus and dismissed the claim petition. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal contending that the Motor Vehicle Act being a beneficial welfare legislation and summary in nature, the Tribunal ought not to have applied strict principles of evidence and proof, and contended that the Tribunal under erroneous views dismissed the MVOP without proper appreciation of factual matrix in right perspective. 10. Heard Sri C.Mohan Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents-TSRTC. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant appellant/claimant contended that due to the crush injury sustained by the claimant, he suffered permanent disability @ 60% and has incurred huge amounts of Rs1,00,000/- towards medical expenditure, and has also lost his job of Home Guard and lost his monthly income of Rs.12,000/- p.m. As such, prayed to allow the appeal granting compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- as sought for by the claimant in the claim petition before the Tribunal along with accrued interest. 12. 12. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents-TSRTC submitted that the findings of the tribunal in holding that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the claimant himself while getting down from the moving bus, as such, the claimant is not entitled to seek any compensation, and the said findings of the Tribunal are justifiable, and that the compensation sought by the claimant was also highly excessive and thus, supported the award passed by the Tribunal, and contended that the interference of this Court with the well considered findings of the Tribunal is unwarranted and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 13. I have taken note of the respective submissions made on either side and given earnest consideration to their submissions and perused the record. 14. The following issues fall for consideration by this Court: 1) Whether the award and decree passed by the Tribunal is perverse and erroneous? 2) To what relief? Observations and findings: 15. Insofar as the findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the claimant/injured, on a perusal of the evidence on record, it is evident that the claimant boarded the RTC bus No.127K on 18.07.2015 at about 13.00 hours at Koti Osmania Medical College Bus Stop for proceeding to Abids to attend his duties. While he was attempting to alight the bus at Abids GPO, due to the heavy rush of the boarders of the bus, he was not allowed to get down at the Abids GPO Stop, Hyderabad and at that juncture, the bus driver without verifying whether any passenger is getting down, moved the bus rashly and negligently, and though the claimant knocked on the door several times cautioning the driver to stop the bus, nonetheless, the driver recklessly moved the bus and the claimant in the process of alighting the bus slipped and fell down, resulting in the rear tyre of the bus passing over his left elbow, resulting in crush injury to left hand and other grievous injuries. This fact was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal and erroneously held that the claimant attempted to get down from a moving bus and held the claimant as responsible for the injuries and exonerated the respondents-TSRTC from liability to pay compensation. 16. This fact was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal and erroneously held that the claimant attempted to get down from a moving bus and held the claimant as responsible for the injuries and exonerated the respondents-TSRTC from liability to pay compensation. 16. In the factual matrix of this nature, it is relevant to note that RTC drivers and conductors play a crucial role in ensuring the safety of passengers who commute to their destinations, and as such the effective coordination between them is essential for the smooth and safe operation of public transport. More so, a duty is cast on them to ensure the safety of life and limbs to the passengers, who commute to their destinations every day and the time plays important role for the passengers to reach their destinations for attending their respective duties or obligations, as in the instant case, the incident happened in the afternoon hours, when the injured was going to attend his duties. 17. In these circumstances, apart from the statutory duty to drive with reasonable care to avoid untoward incidents, the driver is duty-bound to coordinate with the conductor and move the bus only after receiving a proper and safe signal from him after ensuring that adequate time is provided for passengers to board or alight at the bus stops. As well, the conductor carries the responsibility of ensuring passenger safety by supervising the boarding and alighting process, preventing unsafe movement near the exits, and giving clear and timely signals to the driver for starting, stopping, or reversing the bus only when it is safe to move the bus. Failure to perform these duties may amount to dereliction of duties and the said factual matrix the Tribunal should have kept in mind in deciding the liability of the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case. 18. In the present case, as noted above, had the driver or conductor been vigilant in observing the claimant attempting to alight, and had the conductor given the signal or blown whistle to move the bus after the claimant had alight the bus, the accident could have been averted. 18. In the present case, as noted above, had the driver or conductor been vigilant in observing the claimant attempting to alight, and had the conductor given the signal or blown whistle to move the bus after the claimant had alight the bus, the accident could have been averted. It is also pertinent to note that it is not the case of the 2 nd respondent that the claimant was not at the footboard and trying to alight the bus, when the bus was in a running state and that the injured claimant has fell on the road where there is no bus stop. 19. Further, with regard to the Tribunal’s observation that it was highly unlikely for the rear tyre to pass over the left hand of the petitioner immediately as the bus would not have gained sufficient speed while in the process of moving after stopping, is untenable and is unjustified as the manner in which the injured/claimant suffered injury would amply got to show that the driver has not taken proper care. So also, the subject vehicle being a city bus is operational with two exits — one at the front, normally used by ladies, and another at the rear, usually used by all. It is not the case of the respondents that the claimant attempted to alight from the front exit. 20. Therefore, in my considered view, the claimant got injured while attempting to alight from the rear exit of the bus and due to sudden moving of the bus, slipped and fell down, as such there is every reasonable possibility of his body coming into contact with the rear tyre. Such an occurrence is consistent with the manner in which passengers fall near the rear exit of the buses and all these circumstances compel this Court to draw an inference to hold as to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. 21. It is settled position of law that a person “mounting or alighting from the vehicle” is covered under a policy if the injury occurs in the course of mounting/ alighting. 21. It is settled position of law that a person “mounting or alighting from the vehicle” is covered under a policy if the injury occurs in the course of mounting/ alighting. Thus, a public transport corporation (RTC) is generally liable for injuries sustained by a passenger while alighting from a moving bus, if not attempted by voluntary act, such injuries being considered as “arising out of the use of the vehicle”, when the driver and/or conductor of the bus do not take any precautions for stopping the bus and proceed only when all the passengers boarded and alighted the bus. 22, However, this Court also draws an inference as to the negligent act of the claimant in attempting to alight from a moving bus, thereby contributing to the occurrence of the accident. 23. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court without hesitation holds that the driver of the respondents-TSRTC bus drove in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and the injured claimant has also contributed to the accident and accordingly, this Court determines the contributory negligence at 30% on the part of the claimant. 24. Now, coming to the issue of what would be the just and reasonable compensation the oral testimony of PW2, who is an Orthopedic Surgeon at Kamineni Hospital, who treated the claimant, goes to show that the claimant sustained three grievous injuries and due to the injuries, the claimant is unable to lift or hold any weight with his left hand, that there is deformity and disfigurement of the left hand which is permanent in nature, and that the claimant requires further surgery for skin grafting. PW2 assessed the permanent disability of the claimant at 60%, which is markedasEx.X1 and nothing contrary has been elucidated in the cross-examination of PW2. As such, this Court finds it just and proper to accept the disability assessed by PW2, an Orthopedic Surgeon, who treated the injured/claimant as 60%. 25. Though the injured/claimant stated to be working as a Home Guard on a temporary basis and earning Rs.12,000/- per month, no concrete evidence has been placed to show his earnings. However, in Malakappa vs The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. 25. Though the injured/claimant stated to be working as a Home Guard on a temporary basis and earning Rs.12,000/- per month, no concrete evidence has been placed to show his earnings. However, in Malakappa vs The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another , 2025 INSC 590 , the Hon’ble Apex Court considered Rs.8,000/- p.m., in the absence of any evidence regarding the income of the claimant, and thus, this Court deems it appropriate to fix the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/- for determination of loss of earnings and also to determine the compensation towards permanent disability. 26. As the claimant was 38 years of age and was not employed in a permanent job, in terms of the principles laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 , 40% is to be added towards future prospects, which amounts to Rs.3,200/-. Thus, the monthly income of the claimant is assessed at Rs.11,200/- (Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200/-). As the age of the claimant is 38 years, the multiplier of ‘15’ is proper to be applied in terms of the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corp. , 2009 (6) SCC 121 , which is just and proper. Accordingly, the total future earnings works out to Rs.20,16,000/- (Rs.11,200/- × 12 × 15). Since, the claimant has suffered 60% permanent disability, the compensation towards permanent disability would be Rs.12,09,600/- (Rs.20,16,000/- × 60%). 27. Further, having regard to the grievous injuries sustained by the claimant and the fact that he underwent in-patient treatment twice, it is just and fair to award a lump sum amount of Rs.24,000/-(Rs.8,000/- X 3 months), towards loss of earnings in the nature of injuries sustained by him. 28. The claimant has asserted that he incurred more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenditure and in support of his claim, he produced Ex.X2, Discharge Bill for Rs.48,359.52 and Ex.A7, a bundle of medical bills amounting to Rs.10,274/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled to a total of Rs.58,634/- (Rs.48,359.52 + Rs.10,274/- = Rs.58,633.52 rounded to Rs.58,634/-) towards medical expenditure incurred. Besides the same, the claimant is entitled to Rs.60,000/-(Rs.20,000/- × 3) for the pain and suffering of the three grievous injuries, Rs.15,000/- towards transportation, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment, and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and pleasures of life. Thus, the claimant is entitled to a total of Rs.58,634/- (Rs.48,359.52 + Rs.10,274/- = Rs.58,633.52 rounded to Rs.58,634/-) towards medical expenditure incurred. Besides the same, the claimant is entitled to Rs.60,000/-(Rs.20,000/- × 3) for the pain and suffering of the three grievous injuries, Rs.15,000/- towards transportation, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment, and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and pleasures of life. In view of the fracture injury, prolonged treatment, and restricted mobility, the claimant is further entitled to Rs.20,000/- towards attendant charges, and also an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards the future medical expenses for skin grafting as per the evidence of PW2. 29. Thus, the total compensation works out to Rs.14,32,234/-. Out of this amount, in view of the findings of contributory negligence assessed @ 30% on the part of the claimant, the respondents-TSRTC is liable to pay the balance 70% of the compensation i.e., to Rs.10,02,564/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi ’s case (supra). 30. In view of the above, the total compensation, to which the appellant/claimant is entitled, is recalculated as under: Sl.No. Head Amount 1 Income of the injured/claimant Rs.8,000/- per month 2 Future prospects Rs.3,200/- (Rs.8,000 X 40%) 3 Monthly income Rs.11,200/- (Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200) 4 Multiplier ‘15’ 5 Physical Disability 60% 6 Amount towards Physical Disability Rs.12,09,600/- (Rs.11,200 X 12 x 15 X 60%) 7 Medical expenses Rs.58,634/- (Rs.48,359.52 + Rs.10,274/- = Rs.58,633.52 rounded to Rs.58,634/-) 8 Pain & Suffering Rs.60,000/- (Rs.20,000/-X 3 grievous injuries) 9 Loss of earnings Rs.24,000/- (Rs.8,000/- X 3 months) 10 Transportation Rs.15,000/- 11 Extra Nourishment Rs.10,000/- 12 Loss of Pleasures & Amenities in life Rs.10,000/- 13 Attendant Charges Rs.20,000/- 14 Future Medical Expenditure Rs.25,000/- Total compensation: Rs.14,32,234/ 70% towards contributory  negligence of the respondents Rs.10,02,564/- (Rs.14,32,234 X 70% = Rs.10,02,563.80 rounded to Rs.10,02,564/-) 31. Accordingly, the appeal is ALLOWED setting aside the Award passed by the Tribunal, dt.17.12.2017 in MVOP.No.769 of 2017 and the said OP is hereby allowed granting compensation of Rs.10,02,564/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondents-Corporation. The respondents- Corporation is directed to pay the said amount along with accrued interest within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The respondents- Corporation is directed to pay the said amount along with accrued interest within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The injured/claimant is entitled to the said compensation amount, subject to payment of deficit Court Fee before the learned Tribunal. Upon such deposit, the claimant is at liberty to withdraw half of the said amount without furnishing any security and the remaining, after a period of three years from the date of 1 st withdrawal. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.