DIPAK MISRA, J. ( 1 ) BEING dissatisfied and aggrieved by the award dated 24. 8. 2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khandwa (in short 'the Tribunal')in Claim Case No. 19 of 2004 the claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act' ). ( 2 ) THE claimant-appellant initiated an action under section 166 of the Act on the ground that on 23. 10. 2003 while he was sitting on the back seat of the vehicle bearing registration No. MP 6-E 4056, another truck bearing registration No. MP 12-B 1686 hit him as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries on his left hand. Because of the said injuries sustained, he was taken to Government Hospital, Khandwa for administering treatment and after availing treatment for more than 20 days it became necessary to carry out amputation of the left hand. It was contended before the Tribunal that he was sitting on the back seat; he was driver by profession and he was earning Rs. 3,500 per month along with daily allowance. It was highlighted that he was married and had a large family to sustain and due to these injuries, his future prospects have been affected and hence, he was entitled to compensation of Rs. 15,30,000. ( 3 ) OWNER and driver of the offending vehicle countered the claim of the claimant on the foundation that the accident had not been caused due to negligence of the driver and, in fact, the accident occurred exclusively due to negligence of the claimant himself and he was not entitled for any compensation. ( 4 ) THE insurer resisted the claim on the ground that in the absence of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle the question of indemnifying the owner by the insurer did not arise. ( 5 ) THE Tribunal framed as many as six issues and on the basis of material brought on record came to hold that the accident had occurred due to collision between the vehicles in which the claimant was travelling and the offending truck; that claimant kept his hand outside the vehicle which ensued in causation of injuries and, therefore, he had contributed to the same and the said contributory negligence could be assessed at 25 per cent, that he had spent rs. 4,000 on medical treatment; and that he was entitled to Rs. 1,53,600 towards compensation out of which 25 per cent was to be deducted because of the contributory negligence and that after deduction the claimant was entitled to Rs. 1,15,000 and that the insurance company was liable to indemnify the owner. ( 6 ) WE have heard Mr. Anil Lala, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. P. Agrawal, learned senior counsel along with mr. S. K. Tiwari for the respondent insurer. ( 7 ) TWO questions emerge for consideration whether the Tribunal was justified in coming to hold that the claimant-appellant had contributed to the accident and whether the amount that has been computed towards compensation is just and proper. Submission of Mr. Lala is that though there is material on record that the claimant had kept his hand outside the vehicle but it was not exactly a road and, therefore, it was quite within the concept of normalcy to keep the hand outside and the accident had occurred because of total rash and negligent act of the driver, otherwise such an incident should not have occurred on a road like this. In essence, the submission of Mr. Lala is that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. ( 8 ) MR. Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the insurer would contend that the accident would not have occurred had the injured not kept his hand outside the vehicle. Learned senior counsel further submitted that it is not the road, but the nature of the road which would govern the nature of the accident. It is submitted by him that it is conduct of the victim that has to be taken note of while delineating the facet of contribution. It is further submitted by him that had the claimant not kept the hand outside the truck there was no possibility of occurrence of accident of grave nature. In our considered opinion, the determination by the Claims Tribunal as regards the contributory negligence cannot be found fault with and we concur with the same. ( 9 ) THE next aspect that is to be dealt with is whether the Tribunal has rightly granted appropriate compensation. It is evincible from the evidence on record that the injured has remained in hospital for more than 20 days and availed treatment. ( 9 ) THE next aspect that is to be dealt with is whether the Tribunal has rightly granted appropriate compensation. It is evincible from the evidence on record that the injured has remained in hospital for more than 20 days and availed treatment. The Tribunal has computed that there was expense of Rs. 4,000. The Tribunal has not taken note of physical pain and mental suffering; the expenses relating to transportation; special diet; the amount spent on attendant and other concomitant factors. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the injured was a driver, though he was sitting on the conductor's seat. Whether he was working in the truck either in the capacity of driver or conductor, the determination of income per month by the tribunal is low. Without entering into the said debate, we are disposed to determine the amount of compensation in a lump sum manner. Keeping in view the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, the amount expended on various heads, injuries suffered, permanent disability, social strata to which the claimant/injured belongs, the family which he was supposed to support, the quality of life and future prospects, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 would be just and proper. As there was contributory negligence an amount of Rs. 62,500 is deducted. Once Rs. 62,500 is deducted, the appellant would get Rs. 1,87,500 as compensation. The differential sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of presentation of application before the Tribunal till realisation of the amount. The aforesaid amount along with interest shall be deposited before Claims Tribunal within three months. ( 10 ) THE appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed. .