ORDER V.K. Agarwal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 17.2.1994 in Claim Case No. 49/92, by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satna, whereby an award of Rs. 82,200/- was passed in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 1. 2. Undisputedly the claimant/respondent No. 1 on 18.2.1992 while riding his motorcycle reached 'Gahra Nala' near Chunginaka, was dashed by truck No. CPA 3900. He sustained grievous injuries in the accident. He filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation to the tune of 16,01,600/-. 3. The learned Tribunal after scrutiny of evidence and assessment of material on record, concluded that the accident took place on account of contributory negligence on the part of the truck driver as well as that of the claimant/respondent No. 1. The learned Tribunal also assessed Rs. 1,00,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages due to permanent disability suffered by the claimant/respondent No. 1. Besides Rs. 32,000/- were also awarded to the claimant in the head of pecuniary damages. The learned Tribunal in view of its finding that there was contributory negligence, halved the non-pecuniary damages. Thus Rs. 50,000/- were awarded to the claimant/respondent No. 1 on account of non-pecuniary damages. However, an amount of Rs. 32,000/- on account of pecuniary damages was not reduced to half in the above manner, and was added to Rs. 50,000/- granted towards non-pecuniary damages. Thus, a total award of Rs. 82,200/- has been granted in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 1. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the accident occurred on account of sole negligence of claimant/respondent No. 1. However, the evidence led in the case would indicate that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the accident occurred on account of contributory negligence of the claimant/respondent No. 1 as well as that of the driver of the truck. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the amount of compensation is on the higher side. It has further been submitted that the claimant/respondent No. 1 having been found equally negligent in the accident, the award for pecuniary damages ought to have been reduced to half as has been done in the case of non-pecuniary damages. 6. It may be noticed that the claimant/respondent No. 1 suffered several fractures including fractures on the left leg and right shoulder, as well as three of his ribs. 6. It may be noticed that the claimant/respondent No. 1 suffered several fractures including fractures on the left leg and right shoulder, as well as three of his ribs. The claimant/respondent No. 1 was subjected to several operations. He also lost his job as a mechanic. It has also been observed by the learned Tribunal that future prospects of working as an expert mechanic of claimant/respondent No. 1 have been severally impaired on account of permanent disablement suffered by him due to the accident. Claimant was a young man of 25-26 years. He had to undergo treatment for a very long period and he suffered loss of his earning also. In the circumstances, the award of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of non-pecuniary damages does not seem to be excessive. 7. It is however noticed that the amount of Rs. 32,200/- though granted towards pecuniary damages, has not been reduced to half. This does not appear to be justified. If the respondent/claimant No. 1 was held to be equally responsible for the accident, he was only entitled to get half of the total damages assessed by the Tribunal. 8. Therefore, after adding pecuniary damages of Rs. 32,200/-, to non-pecuniary damages of Rs. 1,00,000/-, gross amount would add to Rs. 1,32,200/-. Therefore, the claimant/respondent No. 1 would be entitled to Rs. 66,100/- being half of the said amount. 9. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. The amount of award is reduced from Rs. 82,200/- to Rs. 66,100/-. Rest of the terms of the award including interest as awarded by the Tribunal shall also be payable to claimant/respondent No. 1.