Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-In instant appeal, claimant-injured seeks enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Dausa, (“Tribunal”) vide award dated 24.01.2001 passed in MACT Case No. 14/2000. 2. As alleged in claim petition, claimant sustained injuries in the accident which took place on 011.1999 while standing at his left side at Mahuwa Bus stand, when the offending bus No. RJ25/P/0278 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, got collided with him and as a result of which, he sustained injuries. In disability certificate, the doctor opined that there was dislocation in knee with restriction of its movements with 3% permanent disability in left lower limb and injured will have difficulty in squatting due to injuries sustained by claimant, who remained in hospital for 11-12 days. The Tribunal after taking into consideration material on record, assessed in all Rs. 55,000/-as compensation (including Rs. 25,000/-towards permanent disability, Rs. 10,000/-for injuries sustained in his body and Rs. 5,000/-towards expenses incurred in transport, and Rs. 15,000/-towards expenses incurred in medicines) but since, claimant was also held equally negligent, awarded half of the amount computed of Rs. 27,000/-alongwith interest @ 12% per annum, from the date of filling claim petition till actual payment vide impugned award. 3. Shri J.P. Gupta, Counsel for claimant contended that statements of claimant (AW. 1) and so also of eye-witness of occurrence Arvind Kumar (AW. 2) clearly show that he met with accident due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by Respondent No. 1, finding recorded by Tribunal holding claimant to be contributory negligent and reducing amount of compensation determined by half is perverse and requires interference by this Court. Counsel further urged that since claimant remained in hospital for 11-12 days and underwent medical treatment for the injuries sustained in the accident causing physical and mental pain, looking to gravity of his injuries, amount of compensation awarded deserves to be enhanced as well. 4. Per contra, Counsel for respondents drew attention of this Court to the statements of driver (NAW. 1) and conductor (NAW. 2) of offending vehicle and so also site plan (Exhibit-4) and urged that in view of this state of evidence, the Tribunal has rightly held claimant contributory negligent to the extent of 50% and what has been awarded, is just compensation on the basis of material on record requiring no enhancement. 5. 1) and conductor (NAW. 2) of offending vehicle and so also site plan (Exhibit-4) and urged that in view of this state of evidence, the Tribunal has rightly held claimant contributory negligent to the extent of 50% and what has been awarded, is just compensation on the basis of material on record requiring no enhancement. 5. I have pondered over contentions of both the parties and with their assistance, perused material on record. From the evidence of driver and conductor of offending vehicle so also site plain it clearly shows that claimant himself was sitting over the roof during which he tried to close door of roadways bus and there was no control on him thereby he fell down resulting into sustaining injuries. Even as per site plan (Exhibit-4) width of road where the accident took place, was so narrow and there was hardly a distance and gap of 10-15 ft. It has been general practice on the part of private jeep drivers that passengers should not travel by public transport buses because of cheaper fare rates despite the private jeeps being over-crowded. From material on record, it remains undisputed that claimant fell down from the roof of jeep. Once the claimant found the jeep over-crowded and admittedly there was also roadways bus standing at the bus stop, but he preferred to travel by private jeep obviously due to cheaper rate thereby he climbed over the jeep and sit but fell down as he acted negligently for closing door of roadways bus by his leg which resulted into his fall sustaining injuries. Therefore, claimant was also equally responsible for the injuries caused on his person in the accident and the finding recorded by the Tribunal is well reasoned and based on material on record, warranting no interference by this Court. 6. In view of nature of injuries and disability found by the doctor and after taking into consideration material on record, in my opinion, what has been awarded is just and reasonable. I do not find any justification to interfere in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under any of the heads. Consequently this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 7. No order as to costs.