SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal and the Cross Objections arise out of the judgment and award passed by the Addl. MACT, Belgaum, in MVC No. 1874 /1997 dated 31. 5. 1999. ( 2 ) THE essential facts of the case with reference to the rank of parties before the Tribunal are as follows:- the petitioner filed a claim petition on 28. 11. 1997 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ - towards injuries and consequent disability suffered by him in a motor accident that occurred on 1. 11. 1997. it was averred that the petitioner with the knowledge of the Conductor of the Bus, was travelling on the top of the KSRTC. , Bus bearing No. KA. 22. F. 592 and the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus by its driver. ( 3 ) THE petition was resisted by the respondent. It was averred that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus. Petitioner had boarded the Bus without the knowledge of the driver and conductor and the petitioner himself was responsible for injuries sustained by him and wherefore, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal framed appropriate issues. On behalf of the claimant, the claimant examined himself as PW1 and also examined pw2, the father-in-law of the petitioner and also PWs 3 and 4, doctors and got marked documents, Ex. P1 to P36. On behalf of the respondent, the driver of the Bus was examined as RW1. However, no documentary evidence was produced. The Tribunal after considering the contention of parties and the material on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus by its driver and further held that -the claimant was also guilty of contributory negligence and apportioned contributory negligence in the proportion of 60% on the part of driver of the bus and 40% on the part of the claimant and further held that the claimant would have been entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,40,000/ - and in view of the finding regarding contributory negligence, reduced the compensation to Rs. 84,000/- and passed the award for the said amount with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition to the date of payment. 1,40,000/ - and in view of the finding regarding contributory negligence, reduced the compensation to Rs. 84,000/- and passed the award for the said amount with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition to the date of payment. That being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the respondent-KSRTC, has preferred the appeal and the claimant has filed cross-objections. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-KSRTC, and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent - claimant. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellant in MFA. 4800/1999-KSRTC, submitted that the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus and the petitioner was on the top of the Bus without the knowledge of the driver and conductor of the bus and he sustained injury due to his own negligence and wherefore, the respondent was not liable to pay compensation. He further submitted that even otherwise, the apportionment of blame worthiness is on a higher side of the driver of the Bus and the quantum of compensation awarded is also excessive. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in MFA 4800/1999 - claimant submitted that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and not due to any contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is on a lower side and the respondent - claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation as sought for in the appeal. ( 8 ) HAVING regard to the contentions urged, the point that arises for determination in this appeal and Cross objections are: 1. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the KSRTC, bus and the claimant and also contributed to the extent of 40% in occurrence of the said accident and in reducing compensation to that extent, is justified having regard to the material on record? 2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is excessive as contended by the KSRTC. , and on a lower side as contended by the claimant and what is the just and reasonable compensation to be awarded to the claimant? 2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is excessive as contended by the KSRTC. , and on a lower side as contended by the claimant and what is the just and reasonable compensation to be awarded to the claimant? i answer the above points for determination as follows:- point No. I : In the Affirmative point No. 2. : The claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation to Rs. 1,50,000/- for the following: reasons ( 9 ) IT is the case of the claimant that since there was rush in the Bus, the Conductor asked him to board on the top of the Bus and he was travelling on the top of the Bus with the knowledge of the driver and the conductor of the Bus and the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus by its driver. On the other hand, the respondent-corporation contented that the claimant was on the top of the Bus without the knowledge of the driver and the conductor and wherefore, the accident occurred solely due to negligence of the claimant himself and he was travelling unauthorisedly on the top of the Bus and wherefore, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The fact that the claimant was travelling on the top of the Bus and that the accident occurred and that the claimant sustained injury when an overhanging branch of the Tree hit his head, is not in dispute. ( 10 ) I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence adduced by parties to find out the validity of the contentions raised in this appeal. ( 11 ) RW1 is the only witness examined for the respondent. He is the driver of the Bus. It is elicited in the cross-examination that he does not know as to whether the claimant had informed the conductor that he would be on the top of the Bus. The conductor is not examined. Evidence of RW1 clearly shows that he had knowledge that there were six passengers on the top of the Bus and he has stated in his examination-in-chief that the said six passengers travelling on the top of the bus might have borded the Bus near mahalingapur. The conductor is not examined. Evidence of RW1 clearly shows that he had knowledge that there were six passengers on the top of the Bus and he has stated in his examination-in-chief that the said six passengers travelling on the top of the bus might have borded the Bus near mahalingapur. Therefore, it is clear that the respondent-Corporation has failed to prove the claimant was on the top of the Bus without the knowledge of the driver-RW1 and the Conductor of the Bus and it is to be held that the claimant was on the top of the Bus with the knowledge of the conductor and Driver of the Bus. It is well settled that both negligence and contributory negligence is breach of duty to take care. Negligence or actionable negligence on the part of the driver is the breach of the duty which he owes to the claimant i. e. , to the persons traveling in the Bus and the other vehicle riders on the road and by committing any breach of the said duty, he would be guilty of negligence. On the other hand, the contributory negligence of a person is breach of duty to take care of himself and not a duty which he owes to the other person ie. , it is breach of duty to take care of the claimant towards himself. In the present case, the material on record clearly shows that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus as is clear from the evidence of PW1, the claimant and the documents produced by him including the certified copy of the complaint - FIR which shows that a criminal case has been registered against the driver of the Bus and the material on record also shows that the claimant, who was on the top of the Bus is guilty of breach of duty to take care of himself as it is clear that there were six other passengers travelling on the top of the Bus and it is only the claimant who came in contact with an overhanging branch of the Tree and sustained injury. Having regard to the above said material on record, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the claimant is also guilty of contributory negligence and has aportioned blame - worthiness to the extent of 60% on the part of the driver of the Bus and 40% on the part of the claimant. It is well settled that there cannot be a precedent regarding apportioned blame - worthiness and it would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case as to the extent to which the claimant would be guilty of contributory negligence and in the present case, having regard to the above said material on record, it cannot be said that apportionment of blame -worthiness made by the Tribunal holding that the driver is guilty to the extent of 60% and the Claimant is guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 40%, is suffering injury, pain and suffering