Judgment :- This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the award dated 11. 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (IV) Judge, Court of Small Causes) Chennai in M.C.O.P.No.5369/1998 questioning the findings arrived at by the Tribunal with regard to negligence and quantum of compensation. 2. It is the case of the claimant/appellant that on 19. 1998 while he was riding his cycle from North to South in Walltax Road, the respondent transport Corporation bus bearing Regn.No.TCB 5066 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant and thus caused him injuries. He was in the Government General Hospital, Chennai-3 on 19. 1998 and 19. 1998 as inpatient and later he took treatment under the private doctors. Hence, the appellant made a claim for a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident as against the respondent Transport Corporation. 3. Per contra, the respondent transport Corporation had filed a counter taking a defence that while the respondent Transport Corporation bus was proceeding in Walltax Road, the victim/claimant who was riding his bicycle in a rash and negligent manner, grazed the bus fell down and and thus, the appellant himself got involved in the accident. 4. In order to prove the case of the claimant/appellant, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1. The doctor was examined as P.W.2. On the side of the respondent, the driver was examined as R.W.1 before the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal after analysing the entire evidence has come to the conclusion that the driver of the bus as well as the victim/claimant contributed negligence towards the accident and therefore, after arriving at a sum of Rs.14,500/- as compensation, deducted Rs.7,250/- towards 50% contributory negligence on the part of the appellant. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal with regard to the contributory negligence is totally wrong. The learned counsel took this Court through the award and pointed out that the Tribunal has given a specific finding by analysing the evidence that the cyclist was going on the left extreme side of the road and thus, by pointing out the said finding of the Tribunal, it was submitted that after having come to the conclusion the Tribunal ought not to have fixed 50% liability for the accident on the part of the victim/claimant. 7. 7. On going through the award, I find that the Tribunal has fixed the contributory negligence only based upon the Ex.P.3-Accident Plan. On a perusal of the accident plan I find that the accident had occurred not in the middle of the road, but, on the other hand, it occurred in the left portion of the road. I am of the opinion that the driver who had driven the respondent transport Corporation bus got every opportunity to see the victim/claimant who was riding the cycle in front of the respondent transport Corporation bus. Hence, if the driver had driven the respondent transport Corporation bus in a more careful manner, he could have certainly avoided the happening of the accident and thus, it is clean that the accident should have taken place only due to the negligent act committed by the driver and not by the appellant/claimant. In the said circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal based on Ex.P3 is totally contra to its own finding that at the time of accident, the victim was going on the left extreme side of the road, which the cyclist is expected to follow. 8. In these circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant definitely suffers from infirmity and the same is liable to be set aside and accordingly, I hereby set aside the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant/appellant. 9. With regard to quantum of compensation, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that a sum of Rs.10,000/-awarded for the disability is on the lower side. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, another sum of Rs.5,000/- could be added for the disability suffered by the victim. Therefore, a sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded under the head of disability is increased to Rs.15,000/-. In total, the award amount of Rs.14,500/- is increased to Rs.19,500/-. Since the finding with regard to contributory negligence is set aside, the appellant is entitled for the entire compensation. So far as the interest is concerned, the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal needs no modification. 11. With the above observation, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.