M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) I have heard the appellant's learned Counsel as also the learned Counsel who represent respondent-claimant. This is a case in which the bus belonging to the Anna Transport corporation Ltd. of Tamil Nadu was proceeding along the Lalbagh Fort Road when the respondent is alleged to have tried to cross the road and he got injured. The appellant's learned counsel has drawn my attention to certain parts of the record in support of his contention that it was relatively a busy area and at a busy part of the day, that the bus had come to a stand-still as certain passengers had to alight and that in these circumstances, the evidence of the driver to the effect that the bus was just moving at a speed of 10 to 15 km. per hour must be accepted. He submits that the Tribunal has completely overlooked the admissions on the part of the respondent-claimant who has admitted that he was pre-occupied with some other thoughts and in other words virtually confessed to the fact that he strayed into the line of movement of the bus. The respondent's learned advocate vehemently countered these submissions and he pointed out that this is a case where the facts speak for themselves and that the claimant was the victim of the rash and negligent manner in which the bus was being driven. He submits that the nature of the injuries themselves would indicate that the driver was so negligent that he not only knocked down the claimant but in addition also ran over a part of his leg and that it is wrong to allege that the claimant was in any way responsible for what happened. ( 2 ) I need to observe here that there is something to be said in favour of both sides, the first of them being that the bus is a relatively large vehicle which has to move through crowded localities, if pedestrians do not make way for the movement of the vehicle and virtually come under the wheels they will have to bear the consequences to the extent of their negligence. From the facts of this case, and from the judicial notice which this Court has to take in respect of the manner in which persons casually walk all over the road and cross wherever they please even when they see an approaching vehicle under the assumption that they have a fundamental right to cross the road wherever they want and occupy whichever portions of the road they want, this court will have to uphold to some extent the submission canvassed by the appellant's learned advocate that the bus driver cannot be held entirely at fault for what happened. The appellant's learned Counsel has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Mahadeo Had Lokre v. State of maharashtra 1972 ACJ 185 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court exonerated the bus driver of the charge of negligence where it was demonstrated that the pedestrian had suddenly crossed the road and it was impossible for the vehicle to avoid hitting him. This court has also laid down very clearly that if on main roads such as the one where the present incident took place persons decide to cross at points other than the designated ones without taking due care and caution until the approaching vehicles have passed and virtually step into the road, that the pedestrian will undoubtedly be equally guilty of contributory negligence. The respondent's learned advocate drew my attention to several decisions wherein the courts have held that particularly in busy areas the drivers of vehicles must observe a high degree of care and caution even to the extent of anticipating that others may make mistakes and that they must drive the vehicles in such a way as to avoid impacts and injuries. There is equal substance in this contention and from the manner in which the incident took place and the. place where the incident took place, I am satisfied that the greater culpability is on the part of the bus driver. On the question of injuries, there is no doubt that in a situation such as the present one the injuries would necessarily be grave or could even be fatal but that is no ground on which one must jump to the conclusion that the driver is ipso facto entirely responsible. On the question of injuries, there is no doubt that in a situation such as the present one the injuries would necessarily be grave or could even be fatal but that is no ground on which one must jump to the conclusion that the driver is ipso facto entirely responsible. This is an aspect of the law that need to be borne in mind because irrespective of how grave the injuries are, if there is contributory negligence on the part of the injured person, the quantified compensation would necessarily stand reduced to that extent. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal in the present case has quantified the aggregate compensation at Rs. 1,06,000 and thereafter reduced it to Rs. 1,00,000 on the ground that there was some contributory negligence from the claimant. To my mind, the degree of negligence on the part of the claimant must necessarily be apportioned and on the facts of the present case, it would be of the order of at least 20 per cent. To this extent, therefore, the award would stand modified in so far as the respondent would be entitled to an aggregate compensation of Rs. 85,000 and not Rs. 1,00,000 as awarded by the Tribunal. The respondent would also be entitled to interest and costs as awarded by the Tribunal. ( 4 ) THE appellant is directed to deposit with the Tribunal the balance amount due to the respondent. ( 5 ) IN keeping with the directions of the Tribunal, the Tribunal shall ensure that two separate amounts of Rs. 25,000 each are deposited with two nationalised or commercial banks as close as possible to the place where the respondent-claimant resides as a fixed deposit for periods of five years at a time renewable for an aggregate of 20 years in all. The bank shall be directed to issue the fixed deposit receipt in the name of the claimant and if he so desires, jointly with his any other family member repayable to either or survivor. The amount shall, however, not be withdrawn or encumbered until each of the deposit has completed a period of 20 years. The bank shall be directed to issue the fixed deposit receipt in the name of the claimant and if he so desires, jointly with his any other family member repayable to either or survivor. The amount shall, however, not be withdrawn or encumbered until each of the deposit has completed a period of 20 years. The interest payable on these fixed deposits shall be paid directly to the respondent every quarter and there shall be no need for the respondent to obtain any court orders either for payment of interest or for repayment of the principal amount when the same is due for repayment. The balance amount over and above the amount of Rs. 50,000 which is directed to be invested shall be paid to the claimant. ( 6 ) THE appeal partially succeeds and stands disposed of. No order as to costs.