1 S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.3517/2005 CHIEF MANAGER, R.S.R.T.C. JHUNJHUNU AGAR, JHUNJHUNU VS DURGA RAM AND OTHERS DATE OF ORDER :- MAY, 12, 2008, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Mr. Virendra Agrawal, for the appellant, Mr. Sumit Awasthi ,for the respondents ` 1. The case has come up for admission. Both the parties agreed that appeal be disposed of at admission stage. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the miscellaneous appeal. 3. This appeal has been preferred by the R.S.R.T.C. against the Award, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Additional District Judge( Fast Track) No. 3, Jhunjhunu (Raj.), in claim Petition No. (216/2002) 103/05 , whereby a sum of Rs. 4,50,040/- was awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents who are dependents of deceased Sheesh Ram, who was travelling on the roof of the bus and 2 died as a result of fall from the roof of the bus while the driver of the bus applied brake . The appellant R.S.R.T.C. has challenged the Award on the ground that the deceased Sheesh Ram was also liable for contributory negligence as he was travelling on the roof of the bus without any authority. Learned counsel submits that deceased Sheesh Ram was an employee of R.S.R.T.C. and was not required to take any ticket while travelling in the bus and he was always aware not to travel on the roof of the bus and as such he was liable 50% contributory negligence . IN support of his argument, he placed reliance on R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Hussain and others (2007 W.L.C. Page 25 and a judgment of Division Bench of this High Court passed in D.B.Civil special Appeal No. 53/96 R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Shashi Kala Vyas and others, decided on December 12, 2002 , wherein the passenger travelling on the roof of the bus was found liable for the contributory negligence of 25% . 3 Learned counsel for the claimants supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into account the evidence led by both the parties during the inquiry and has rightly attributed negligence on the part of the offending vehicle and no contributory negligence can be found on the part of the deceased. Having considered the submissions and going through the award as well as the record of the case, it is revealed that at the time of accident the deceased was travelling on the roof of the bus and he was an employee of R.S.R.T.C. , though it has been argued that the bus being packed, there was no way out except to travel on roof as asked by conductor of the bus and hence, there is no liability for contributory negligence of the deceased but in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is revealed that the deceased was employee of R.S.R.T.C. He was not required to take ticket and if the bus was packed, he could wait for the other bus and was supposed to be more vigilant in observing the rules. Thus, there is no escape but to 4 adjudge him for 25% contributory negligence. The judicial pronouncements submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant are pertinent on the point. Accordingly, the Award deserves to be modified . Accordingly, the impugned award is modified to the extent that the respondent nos. 1 to 3 shall be severally and jointly liable for 75% of the amount i.e. for Rs. 3,37,530/- instead of Rs. 4,50,040/- with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of appeal i.e. 19.11.2005 , subject to the condition that the amount shall be paid within three months from the date of this order, failing which, the amount shall entail interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and the rest of the award shall remain undisturbed. The appeal stands disposed of. (Guman Singh)J.