ORDER 1. This is an appeal filed by the claimant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 3.3.2007, passed by VIth MACT, Indore, in Claim Case No. 129/2005. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,41,000/-, with interest to the claimants for the injuries sustained by appellant. According to claimant, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out in the compensation awarded and if so to what extent? 2. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation etc. It is for the reason that firstly all these findings are recorded in favour of claimants by the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/ driver or Insurance Company either by way of cross appeal or cross objection. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was aged 40 years at the time of accident and was agriculturist by profession and was also carrying the business of selling of milk. Appellant sustained fracture of Tibia bone in right leg, fibula bone in left leg and radius bone in left hand. Appellant was hospitalized at Choithram Hospital for a period of 25 days. Appellant was operated, rod was inserted. Permanent disability was assessed as 16% in left leg and 6% in left hand. It is submitted that learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,41,000/-, breakup of which is as under: Rs. 1,00,000/- Towards medical expenses. Rs. 5,000/- Towards special diet, transportation and expenses incurred on attenders. Rs. 6,000/- Towards loss of income. Rs. 30,000/- towards permanent disability. Permanent disability was assessed as 16% in left leg and 6% in left hand. It is submitted that learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,41,000/-, breakup of which is as under: Rs. 1,00,000/- Towards medical expenses. Rs. 5,000/- Towards special diet, transportation and expenses incurred on attenders. Rs. 6,000/- Towards loss of income. Rs. 30,000/- towards permanent disability. Learned counsel submits that learned Tribunal deducted 20% amount towards contributory negligence, while the appellant was a pillion rider of the motorbike, which met with an accident with a truck in a head on collision. It is submitted that since appellant was not driving vehicle, therefore, learned Tribunal committed error in holding appellant as negligent. It is further submitted that since respondent No.1 did not appear in witness box and the criminal case was registered against respondent No. 1, therefore, learned Tribunal committed error in holding appellant liable to the extent of 20%. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahendra Kumar Jain reported in [ 2005 (3) JLJ 322 ] wherein Division Bench of this Court has held that in a case of collision between bus and truck and there was no evidence of negligence on the part of bus driver, no case of contributory negligence is made out. 4+5. Further reliance was placed on a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of Rehana v. G. Sai Kumar reported in [ 2003 ACJ 32 J wherein neither truck driver was examined, nor any evidence was adduced to prove that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased by the Insurance Company. It was held that truck driver was solely responsible for the accident and there was no contributory negligence of the moped rider. 6. Reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Akhilesh Dwivedi reported in [ 2007 (II) MPWN 21 = 2007 (2) DMP 265] wherein the evidence adduced by claimants was not rebutted by Insurance Company by examining any witness and the driver was also not examined. It was held that accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of offending truck. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was hospitalized at Choithram Hospital and spent a sum of Rs. It was held that accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of offending truck. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was hospitalized at Choithram Hospital and spent a sum of Rs. 1,16,000/- for which medical bills were produced, but learned Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. On account of permanent disability also the amount awarded is on lower side. Similarly, on account of special diet, expenses incurred on attenders and transportation expenses lumpsum amount has been awarded, which is on lower side. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that learned Tribunal has rightly held that it was a case of contributory negligence, as appellant himself was not only driving but also talking with one Narendra, who was pillion rider. It is submitted that it was head on collision and the road was wide enough, therefore, the accident could have been avoided if due precaution would have been taken by the appellant. It is also submitted that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. 9. I have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimants. After taking into consideration all the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that learned Tribunal committed error in holding the appellant also responsible as the appellant was talking while driving. The contention of the counsel of appellant, that appellant was a pillion rider is against the record. However, since respondent No.3 did not lead any evidence, nor examined respondent No.1 and the criminal case was registered against respondent No.1, it goes to show that it was respondent No.1, who was negligent and cause of accident. Since there is no evidence on record that appellant was talking with the pillion rider, therefore, learned Tribunal committed error in holding the appellant responsible on account of contributory negligence. So far as the amount awarded is concerned, no separate amount has been awarded on account of expenses incurred on attenders and transportation expenses. similarly, there is no justification for not awarding amount of Rs. 1,16,000/- on account of medical expenses for which the bills were proved. On account of permanent disability also the amount awarded is on lower side. In my opinion it will be proper to enhance the amount of compensation. The appellant is further entitle for the following enhanced amount : Rs. 10,000/- Towards permanent disability. Rs. 16,000/- Towards medical expenses. Rs. 1,16,000/- on account of medical expenses for which the bills were proved. On account of permanent disability also the amount awarded is on lower side. In my opinion it will be proper to enhance the amount of compensation. The appellant is further entitle for the following enhanced amount : Rs. 10,000/- Towards permanent disability. Rs. 16,000/- Towards medical expenses. Rs. 5,000/- Towards transportation expenses. Rs. 5,000/- Towards expenses incurred on attenders. Rs. 36,000/- Total 10. In other words, in view of this, the claimant is held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 1,77,000/- instead of Rs. 1,41,000/- by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant. The enhanced amount of Rs. 36,000/- shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. Thus, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed in part. Findings relating to contributory negligence of appellant upto the extent of 20% is set aside. 11. With the aforesaid modification the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.