K. MOHAN RAM, J. ( 1 ) THE claimant in M. C. O. P. No. 103 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims tribunal (Additional Sub-Judge and Chief judicial Magistrate), Chengalpattu is the appellant herein. ( 2 ) THE appellant herein filed m. C. O. P. No. 103 of 1995 before the Motor accident Claims Tribunal seeking a sum of rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) as compensation lor the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that took place at 8. 00 a. m. on 27th May, 1995 involving the claimant's motor cycle and an Ambassador car belonging to the first respondent herein, which was insured with the second respondent herein. ( 3 ) THE case of claimant before the Tribunal was that on 27lh May, 1995 at about 8 a. m. , when the claimant was riding his motor cycle from Athur to Chcngalpattu town along with one Ibrahim in proper direction by following all the rules of road and when he was proceeding at bye-pass road, chengalpattu, the first respondenl's carcame from Madras towards Dindivanam in high speed driven rashly and negligently and hit the claimant's motor cycle and due to that the claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries and the pillion rider also sustained injuries. ( 4 ) THE second respondent herein, who is the insurer of the vehicle, filed a counter statement denying the allegations made by the claimant and contended that the accident took place only due to the negligent driving of the motorcyclist. It was further contended that the claimant suddenly crossed the road without noticing the vehicle coming from madras to Dindivanam. ( 5 ) ON a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case, the Tribunal fixed the compensation payable at Rs. 91,000/- (Rupees ninety-one thousand only ). The Tribunal fixed the ratio of negligence as 50% on the part of The claimant and 50% on the part of the driver of the car and deducted 50% from the award towards contributing negligence. The insurance company has not filed any appeal. In this appeal the claimant contends that the finding of the Tribunal as far as the fixing of ratio ol negligence as 50% on the part of the claimant is concerned is not correct. ( 6 ) I leard both. The insurance company has not filed any appeal. In this appeal the claimant contends that the finding of the Tribunal as far as the fixing of ratio ol negligence as 50% on the part of the claimant is concerned is not correct. ( 6 ) I leard both. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant by referring to the evidence of P. W. 1 the claimant and P. W. 2 the pillion rider submitted that nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to discredit their evidence. The learned Counsel further submitted that though the claimant in the claim petition has stated that he was proceeding in his motor cycle by following all the rules of road, the same has not been specifically denied in the counter statement filed by the second respondent. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel that on the side of the respondent. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel that on the side of the respondent, no witness has been examined to rebut the evidence adduced on the side of the claimant. The Tribunal, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, has not at all considered the oral evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2. ( 8 ) PER contra the learned Counsel for the second respondent-insurer submitted that the oral evidence of P. W. 1 is contrary to the pleadings contained in the claim petition and he further submitted that the Tribunal held that the accident in question had taken place only due to the contributory negligence on the claimant. The learned counsel further submitted that considering the fact that the accident has taken place in the middle of the National Highway and while the claimant was crossing the National highway without taking proper care to see the on coming vehicle, the finding of the tribunal on the question of contributing negligence cannot be found fault with. ( 9 ) THE Tribunal while considering the testimony of P. W. 1 has observed that while in Ext P-1 First Information Report, it is not staled that the Ambassador car while overtaking the lorry hit against the motor cycle of the claimant, but P. W. 1 in his deposition has staled so. This observation of the Tribunal overlooks the fact that Ext P-1 first Information Report was not lodged by either P. W. 1 or P. W. 2,. This observation of the Tribunal overlooks the fact that Ext P-1 first Information Report was not lodged by either P. W. 1 or P. W. 2,. who are the injured, but Ext P-1 First Information Report was lodged by some other person, who was not an eye-witness. Apart from the above observation, the Tribunal has not at all considered the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 in theproperperspective. P. W. 1 hasspecifically stated in his evidence that he was proceeding in his motor cycle from Athur village to chengalpallu town and P. W. 2 was travelling with him as pillion rider ad while in the course of crossing the bye-pass road, P. W. 1 had stopped the motor cycle in the middle of the bye-pass road and the first respondent's car coming from Chennai to Dindivanam with high speed, while trying to overtake a lorry came on. the wrong side, hit against the motor cycle and due to that he sustained injuries. In the cross-examination, no question whatsoever has been put to P. W. 1 on the above said aspect, except putting a suggestion that the accident took place no. 1 due to any negligence on the part of the driver of the car, but the accidenl tool place only due to the negligence on the part of the claimant. Similarly, though P. W. 2 has spoken tocorroboraling P. W. 1 he has nol been cross-examined on that aspect, except suggesting that the accident took place only due to the negligence on the part of the molor cyclist, namely the claimant. It is also pertinent to point our at this juncture that the driver of the car has not been examined by the respondent herein. When nothing has been elicited in the course of cross-examination of p. Ws. 1 and 2 and no rebuttal evidence has been adduced by the respondent, the tribunal without considering the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 in the proper perspective, has erred in holding that the claimant also was negligent and he contributed tor the accident. The Tribunal has only taken into account the place of accident, namely the middle of the bye-pass roaci, without considering the evidence on record. 1 and 2 in the proper perspective, has erred in holding that the claimant also was negligent and he contributed tor the accident. The Tribunal has only taken into account the place of accident, namely the middle of the bye-pass roaci, without considering the evidence on record. As pointed out above, in the claim petition itself, the claimant has averred that he was proceeding in his motor cycle from Athur to chengalpaltu town along with Ibrahim, in correct direction by following all the rules of road. But the same has not been specifically denied in the counter statement filed by the respondent. But the second respondent has simply slated that the accident has taken place only due to the negligence on the part of the claimant. ( 10 ) IN consonance with the plea in the claim petition, the claimant has deposed belore the Tribunal that after reaching the middle portion of road, he slopped the vehicle and at that hime the Ambassador car while trying to overtake the lorry came on the wrong side and hit against the motor cycle and his evidence of P. W. 1 has not at all been subjected to cross-examination and as pointed out above, nothing has been elicited to discredit either P. W. 1 or P. W. 2. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the tribunal has committed an error in overlooking the evidence on record and recorded an erroneous finding regarding contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. ( 11 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel or the second respondent is thalby applying the principles of res ipsa loquitur, the Tribunal has rightly held that the claimant was equally responsible for the accident. The said contention of the learned Counsel for the second respondent may be accepted if there was not evidence at all. But as pointed out above there is ample evidence in this case to show that the driverof the car was responsible of res ipsa loquitur by overlooking the evidence available on record and especially when there is no rebuttal evidence on the side of the respondents. ( 12 ) FOR the above said reasons, the finding of the Tribunal is liable to be set-aside and accordingly set-aside. Therefore, the claimani is entitled for the entire amount of Rs. 91,000/- (Rupees ninety-one thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal as compensation. ( 12 ) FOR the above said reasons, the finding of the Tribunal is liable to be set-aside and accordingly set-aside. Therefore, the claimani is entitled for the entire amount of Rs. 91,000/- (Rupees ninety-one thousand only) awarded by the Tribunal as compensation. ( 13 ) THE learned Counsel for the second respondent by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court reported in the case of Tamil nadu State Transport Corporation Limitted v. S. Rajapriyti and others, submitted that the interest payable on the sum of Rs. 45,000/-cannot exceed 7. 5%. The said submission of the learned Counsel for the second respondent has to be accepted in view of the above said decision ol the Apex Court. Accordingly, the above appeal stands allowed. But, however, the interest payable on the enhanced compensation amount of rs. 45,000/- is restricted to 7. 5%. ( 14 ) THE appeal is allowed as indicated above. Nocosts. Consequently/ the connected c. M. P. is closed. - .