JUDGMENT 1. - Having sustained a disability of 10.5%, having received a compensation of Rs. 29,453/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, the appellant has come before this Court for enhancement of compensation. 2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 16.4.1992, while the appellant, along with his two friends, was riding on his motorcycle, bearing registration No. RPS-140, when they were crossing the Bhabha Marg, near Moti Dungari at Jaipur, a Maruti car, bearing registration No. RNX 9109 came from Bhabha Marg and turned on the main road. According to the appellant, the car was being driven in rash and negligent manner. Consequently, it hit the motorcycle. Resultant, the appellant suffered fracture of his right foot as well as certain injuries on the elbow and on the right thigh. Along with other injured persons, the appellant filed his claim petition. Since, three different claim petitions were filed, they were clubbed together and by a common award dated 22.6.1996, all these petitions were decided by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur (for short, the learned Tribunal'). In order to support his case, the appellant had examined five witnesses and the Insurance Company had examined two witnesses. Both the sides had submitted a large number of documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal concluded that the appellant had contributed 25% to the accident. Therefore, while granting the compensation amounting to Rs. 39,270/-, it deducted 25% thereof and directed the compensation of Rs. 29,453/- to be paid to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Since, the appellant is aggrieved by the meagre amount of compensation, he has filed this appeal before this Court. 3. Mr. Sobhit Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently raised three contentions before this Court : firstly, there is no evidence to show that the appellant had contributed 25% to the occurrence of the accident. According to him, the appellant was driving his motor cycle on the correct side of the road. In fact, according to the evidence, the accident had occurred merely because the Maruti car had not taken a long turn, but had taken a short turn on the main road. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has incorrectly concluded that the appellant had contributed to the occurrence of the accident. In fact, according to the evidence, the accident had occurred merely because the Maruti car had not taken a long turn, but had taken a short turn on the main road. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has incorrectly concluded that the appellant had contributed to the occurrence of the accident. Secondly, even if three persons were riding on the motorcycle, no presumption can be drawn that they had contributed to the accident. Thirdly, the compensation of Rs. 29,453/- is not "just and reasonable" for the disability suffered by the appellant. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Mohan Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned award. 5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record as well as the impugned award. 6. Two issues have been arisen for our consideration : firstly, whether there was an element of negligence or rashness on the part of the appellant or not? Secondly, whether reasonable compensation has been paid to the appellant or not? Admittedly, the appellant was riding on the motorcycle along with his two friends. Thus, there were three riders on the motorcycle. It is trite to state that a person who drives a motorcycle is presumed to know that three riders are not permissible on a motorcycle. Therefore, the appellant has clearly violated the provisions of law. Secondly, a detailed discussion of the evidence by the learned Tribunal clearly reveals that the appellant in his examination-in-chief had admitted the fact that he had seen the Maruti car as far as 20 feet away. Therefore, he was equally duty-bound to protect his own vehicle from the offending vehicle which was allegedly being driven in rash and negligent manner. Despite the fact that there was sufficient clear space on the road side, where the motorcycle was being driven, the appellant had not taken any step to avoid the accident. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in concluding that the appellant was responsible to the extent of 25% for the accident. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case of National Insurance Company & Ors. v. Kastroi Devi & Ors., 1988 ACJ 8 , in order to buttress his contention that merely because three riders are riding on a motorcycle, no presumption can be drawn that they have contributed to the occurrence of the accident. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the case of National Insurance Company & Ors. v. Kastroi Devi & Ors., 1988 ACJ 8 , in order to buttress his contention that merely because three riders are riding on a motorcycle, no presumption can be drawn that they have contributed to the occurrence of the accident. Need less to say, that there is no such presumption in law, but each case has to be decided on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, there was sufficient space for the appellant to divert his motorcycle when he had seen the Maruti car which was being driven in rash and negligent manner. However, the appellant seems not to have taken any step to avert the accident. The conduct of the appellant is further aggravated by the fact that he was carrying two pillion riders with him while driving the motorcycle. Since the appellant has broken the law, even if negligence cannot be attributed to him, a certain amount of rashness is certainly attributable to him. Therefore, the finding of fact as concluded by the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted. 8. Considering the fact that the appellant has suffered only a disability of 10.5%, considering the fact that the compensation of Its. 29,453/- has already been paid to the appellant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, considering the fact that the compensation is not supposed to be a bonanza, considering the fact that the claimant is entitled to only a "just and reasonable" amount of compensation under the circumstances, the compensation as granted by the learned Tribunal is more than "just and reasonable". 9. In the result, there is no force in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******