JUDGMENT Surinder Sarup, J.—The claimant has filed this appeal against the award rendered by the then Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1) Kangra at Dharamshala dated 16.10.1995. By the said award, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition of the appellant and granted compensation of Rs. 1,62,750/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the petition i.e. 8-3-1995 till the date of payment/deposit of the amount. 2. The appellant filed the claim petition on the pleadings that an accident took place between Maruti van bearing registration No. DBG-1730 and a Truck bearing registration No. HIK-4334 on 17-9-1994 at about 9.30 p.m. at Aghar-Ka-Talab on Jassur-Talwars road within the local limits of jurisdiction of Police Station, Nurpur District Kangra. The appellant who was driving the Maruti van at the relevant time, sustained multiple grievous injuries as a result thereof. Smt. Rita Devi W/o Shri Shiv Dutt, an occupant of the Maruti van in question died due to this accident. Respondent No.3 was the driver of the Truck and the same belongs to respondents No. 1 and 2. 3. According to the claimant-petitioner, the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.3. He "claims that he was a young man of about 35 years of age at the relevant time and was a businessman having a monthly income of Rs. 50,000/-. It was also pleaded that he is an income tax payee. He suffered permanent disability. He pleaded that an amount of Rs. 1,50, 000/- was spent on his medical treatment. Further, an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- is likely to be incurred in future on his medical treatment. On these pleadings, the appellant claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,24,50,000/- for the bodily injuries suffered by him in the said accident. 4. In their joint written statement, respondents No.1 and 2 denied both the accident as well as the injuries caused to the appellant as a result thereof. According to them, the truck in question was coming to Nurpur from Dhameta and when it reached near the place of occurrence, truck No. HPC 499 was parked on the right side of the road, while the truck in question was being driven on the left hand side. According to them, the truck in question was coming to Nurpur from Dhameta and when it reached near the place of occurrence, truck No. HPC 499 was parked on the right side of the road, while the truck in question was being driven on the left hand side. Suddenly, a Maruti car, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the present appellant overtook the truck which was parked on the right side of the road as mentioned above, and came towards its wrong side i.e., towards the side of the truck in question. The driver of the truck i.e. respondent No.3 by that time had stopped the truck. All the more, the appellant who was driving the Maruti car at a very high speed could not control it and it dashed against the right side of the truck being driven by respondent No.3. It was discovered that the Maruti car was overcrowded with seven passengers including the appellant, which was beyond its capacity. That might have been one of the reasons for the accident. It was denied that there was any fault of the driver to the truck i.e. respondent No.3. It was reiterated that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruti car, i.e. the appellant which resulted into the death of one of its passengers and injuries to others. Since the truck was stationary on the road, it did not suffer much damage when it was hit by Maruti car. 5. Respondent No.3, i.e. the driver of the truck in question did not file separate written statement of his own but adopted the reply of respondents No.1 and 2. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: "1. Whether the petitioner sustained the injuries in the accident as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent No.3? OPP 2. To what amount of compensation, if any, is the petitioner entitled to, if so, from whom and to what extent? OP Parties. 3. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition, as alleged? OPR. 4. Relief.” 7. Under Issue No.1, it was found that the accident took place as a result of contributory negligence of the appellant and that of respondent No.3. 8. OP Parties. 3. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition, as alleged? OPR. 4. Relief.” 7. Under Issue No.1, it was found that the accident took place as a result of contributory negligence of the appellant and that of respondent No.3. 8. Under Issue No.2, the learned Tribunal after discussing the evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was about 35 years old and considering his age, the Tribunal adopted a multiplier of 20 as being just and reasonable. On account of this, he assessed the compensation payable to the appellant as Rs. 2,85,500 by coming to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to compensation calculated @ 50% of his annual income which was 28,550/- and 50% of the same being Rs. 14,275/-. This amount of Rs. 2,85,500/- was assessed as compensation on account of loss of future income. But, in view of the findings under Issue No.1, the Tribunal reduced the amount of compensation to which the appellant was entitled, to Rs. 1,42,750/-, being half of the assessed loss of future income of Rs. 2,85,500/-. 9. As regards the expenses incurred on medical treatment, he had produced vouchers/bills in evidence of Rs. 15,013/-. However, the Tribunal relying on the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, held the appellant to be entitled to Rs. 15,000/- as one time payment towards medical expenses. In addition, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the appellant under the head "paid and sufferings". Thus, he arrived at the total figure of Rs. 1,62,750/- as the compensation to which the appellant was entitled. 10. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Advocate-General assisted by Shri M.L. Chauhan, Assistant Advocate-General for the respondents No.1 and 2. We have also examined the record. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellant has taken us through the statements of its witnesses i.e. PWs 1 to 4 and on the basis of the same, has challenged the finding of the learned Tribunal under Issue No. 1 that the accident in question took place due to the contributory negligence of both the appellant as well as respondent No.3. On the other hand, the learned Advocate-General and Assistant Advocate-General has referred to the statement of the star witness of the appellant i.e. PW-1 Pradeep Sharma. On the other hand, the learned Advocate-General and Assistant Advocate-General has referred to the statement of the star witness of the appellant i.e. PW-1 Pradeep Sharma. The same discloses that though he is an alleged eye-witness yet strangely enough, he did not accompany the injured claimant/appellant to the hospital where he was taken after the accident for medical treatment of his injuries. Moreover, his name does not figure in the FIR, which was lodged regarding the accident. Admittedly, there were other occupants of the Maruti car besides the appellant, who survived the accident although they sustained injuries but none of them has been examined by the appellant in support of his case that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck in question by respondent No3. 12. Faced with the above situation, the learned Counsel for the appellant has laid great stress on the fact that while disposing of Issue No.1, the learned Tribunal has not discussed the evidence led by the parties on that aspect of the case, at all. In order to obviate this objection, we ourselves have carefully scrutinised the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. As a result thereof, we find no error in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal that accident was caused due to the contributory negligence of the driver of the Maruti Car i.e. the appellant and the driver of the truck in question in. respondent No.3. As already discussed above, the evidence led by the appellant as regards his claim under Issue No.1 does not inspire confidence and, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal of contributory negligence cannot be faulted. 13. The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied on a reported case decided by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Thangamma Mathew Musariparambil and others v. Mummidivarpu Venkata Narasimha Rao and others, (1997 ACJ 574). On going through the said ruling, we find that it is distinguishable on facts. 14. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2, the learned Advocate-General assisted by Assistant Advocate-General had cited Major Benjamin Chacko v. Maha Singh and others, (1987) 1 ACC 110. On the facts of that case, it was held that the accident therein had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of DTC bus by its driver thereby causing serious injuries to the claimant therein. On the facts of that case, it was held that the accident therein had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of DTC bus by its driver thereby causing serious injuries to the claimant therein. It was held that in case of contributory negligence, the test is whether the person who last had the opportunity could avoid it. The observations contained in this authority are somewhat helpful to the case of the respondents. 15. The learned Counsel for the appellant has then challenged the finding of the Tribunal as regards the quantum of compensation and stated that the full medical expenses have not been reimbursed to the appellant, nor any compensation has been awarded for availing the services of a domestic servant by paying him wages to look after the incapacitated appellant after the accident. As regards the first objection, the finding of the learned Tribunal is that the evidence on record in the form of vouchers/bills indicates an expenditure of Rs. 15,013/- towards medical treatment. He thus awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on that count. We fail to see how, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal could have awarded more amount for defraying the medical expenses. 16. As regards the second ground, there is no cogent or reliable evidence on record led on behalf of the appellant that in fact, he had engaged a servant to look after him as he was incapacitated due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident in question. Also, there is no reliable or cogent evidence to show that if he had employed such domestic servant as alleged, what were the wages being paid to him. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant as regards the inadequacy of the total compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, which according to us, is fully justified on the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. No other point has been urged nor arises. 18. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.