ORDER 1. Heard. 2. Being aggrieved by award dated 22.8.2005 passed by 2nd MACT Dewas in Claim Case No. 96/04 whereby claim petition filed by the appellant was allowed and a sum of Rs·. 15,000/- has been awarded as compensation on account of damages sustained by the appellant, present appeal has been filed. . 3. Short facts of the case are that appellant filed a claim petition alleging that on 13.12.2003 appellant was going on his motor bike bearing registration No. MP/09/JB-8812 from Dewas to Indore, at that time, one matador bearing registration No. MP/09-HC/3089 was standing before the garage situated at Kanchanbagh, Indore. It was alleged that at that time driver of the offending matador, who is respondent No. 1 herein opened the left side gate of the vehicle carelessly with the result the appellant sustained grievous injuries. It was alleged that at the relevant time, respondent No.1 was the driver of the offending vehicle, respondent No.2 was the owner and the vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. In the claim petition compensation of Rs. 7,60,000/- was claimed against respondents. The claim petition was contested by respondent No. 3 on various grounds including on the ground that respondent No. 1 was not possessing valid driving licence on the date of the accident and appellant himself was liable for the accident as the appellant was overtaking the offending matador van from left side. It was prayed in the claim petition that it be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition filed by the appellant and awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as compensation. Being aggrieved by inadequacy of the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, present appeal has been filed, in which cross-objection has been filed by respondent No. 3 wherein it was prayed that the award be set aside as the appellant himself was negligent. 4. Mr. Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant was aged 42 years on the date of the accident and was in the job with M/s. Gajra Gears. Appellant sustained fracture of little distal toe in right leg. It is submitted that permanent disability was assessed by Dr. Y.A. Valambe as 15.5%. 4. Mr. Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant was aged 42 years on the date of the accident and was in the job with M/s. Gajra Gears. Appellant sustained fracture of little distal toe in right leg. It is submitted that permanent disability was assessed by Dr. Y.A. Valambe as 15.5%. Learned counsel submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side, a breakup of which is as under: towards medical expenses Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of earnings Rs. 5,000/- towards pain & suffering Rs. 5,000/- Learned counsel submits that the amount awarded deserves to be enhanced as no amount has been awarded on account of injuries sustained by the appellant and also on number of other heads. 5. Mr. Jindal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the appellant was not hospitalized. It is submitted that there is nothing on record to show that the appellant was on leave from his job. It is submitted that the medical expenses incurred by the appellant for which medical bills have been filed are amounting to Rs. 3,500/-. In the circumstances, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on higher side. Learned counsel further submits that learned Tribunal committed error in holding respondent No.3 liable for payment of compensation as the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence. It is submitted that the date of accident is 13.12.2003 while the licence which is on record is dated 23.12.2003 meaning thereby the licence was issued to respondent No. 1 after ten days of the accident. It is submitted in the facts and circumstances of the case even if any amount has been awarded to the appellant then right of recovery ought to have been given to respondent No.3. Mr. It is submitted in the facts and circumstances of the case even if any amount has been awarded to the appellant then right of recovery ought to have been given to respondent No.3. Mr. Jindal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 further submits that from the facts on record it is amply proved that the appellant has over took motor bike by the left side of the offending Maruti van while as per Rule 4 of the Rules of Traffic Regulation, 1989 which has been framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by section 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it is the duty of the driver of motor vehicle to pass a vehicle from the right side of driver proceeding in the same direction as himself except as provided in Regulation 5. Learned counsel submits that appellant himself has come in witness box and stated that he overtook the vehicle by the left side. It is submitted that the statement of appellant has been further corrobonted from the statement of Ran Bahadur Thapa (AW 3) who is eye witness of the incident and stated that the appellant has overtaken the offending Maruti van by the left side. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal committed error in awarding compensation to the appellant for his negligence. 6. Mr. Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for appellant submits that offending vehicle was in stationary condition in the middle of the road and in the circumstances, the appellant had no option but to overtake the vehicle by the left side. It is submitted that criminal case was registered against respondent No. 1 which goes to show that it was the act of negligence of the respondent No. 1 which caused the accident. Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 reads as under: "4. Passing to the right -- Except as provided in Regulation 5, the driver of a motor vehicle shall pass to the right of all traffic proceeding in the same direction as himself. . 5. Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 reads as under: "4. Passing to the right -- Except as provided in Regulation 5, the driver of a motor vehicle shall pass to the right of all traffic proceeding in the same direction as himself. . 5. Passing to the left -- The driver of a motor vehicle may pass to the left of a vehicle the driver of which having indicated an intention to turn to the right has drawn to the centre of the road as may pass on either side, a tram car or other vehicle running on fixed rails whether travelling in the same direction as himself or otherwise provided that in no case shall he pass a tram car at a time or in manner likely to cause danger or inconvenience to other users of the road including persons leaving or about to enter tram cars." 7. From perusal of the aforesaid rules it is evident that except as provided in Regulation 5 the driver of Motor Vehicles it is the duty of the driver of motor vehicle to pass a vehicle from the right side of driver proceeding in the same direction as himself. As per Rule 5 of the Regulations driver of motor vehicle can pass to left of the vehicle where the driver of which having indicated intention to turn to right. From the evidence on record it is evident that offending car was in a stationary position in front of garage. The owner of the vehicle has himself come in witness box and stated that the vehicle was under repair in the garage at the relevant time. There was no justification on the part of the appellant to pass offending vehicle from the left side. The act of the appellant himself was in utter disregard to Rule 4 of the road regulations. It is true that criminal case was registered against respondent No. 1 but there is nothing on record to show that this aspect of the case was taken into consideration by the investigating officer while filing the criminal case. The act of the appellant himself was in utter disregard to Rule 4 of the road regulations. It is true that criminal case was registered against respondent No. 1 but there is nothing on record to show that this aspect of the case was taken into consideration by the investigating officer while filing the criminal case. So far as contention of the appellant that the offending vehicle was in the middle of the road is concerned, it is true that the appellant and his witness have stated in that regard but this fact has not been pleaded by the appellant in the claim petition itself which goes to show that it was nothing but after thought. In the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that a case of contributory negligence is made out and the appellant himself was equally liable for the accident. 8. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, it appears that a case of enhancement is made out. Appellant shall be further entitled for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- totalling 30,000/-. Since the appellant was equally liable for the accident, therefore, the appellant shall be entitled 50% of the amount of compensation. Since respondent No. 1 was not possessing valid driving licence at the relevant time, therefore, learned Tribunal committed error in not giving right of recovery to respondent No.3. 9. In view of this, appeal stands allowed, the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 30,000/-. Out of the amount of compensation the appellant shall be entitled for 50% as the appellant himself was equally liable for the accident. Respondent No.3 shall have right of recovery from respondents No. 1 and 2. Since respondents No.1 and 2 were ex parte before the learned Tribunal and are also not present before this Court, therefore, in case right of recovery is exercised by the respondent No.3, then respondents No. 1 and 2 shall have an option to demonstrate before the learned executing Court that respondent No. 1 was possessing valid driving licence on the date of accident. 10. With the aforesaid modifications, the appeal stands disposed of.