Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The present appeal arises against the judgement and order dated 9.1.2010 passed by the Tribunal in MACP No. 319 of 2006, whereby the compensation has been awarded of Rs. 8 lac with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. 2. The short facts of the case appear to be that on 13.4.2006 at about 12.30 hours in the night, the husband of the applicant – deceased Madhusinh, when he was going on motor cycle bearing Registration No. GJ-1-DP-5380 at the place just opposite to Mangal Jyot Flat situated on Jodhpur village road, Ahmedabad, one Tata-407 No. GJ-1-AU-3338 came with full speed and took a ‘U’ turn, which resulted into the accident and the deceased fell down from the motor cycle, sustained injuries and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. The claim petition was filed in MACP No. 319 of 2006 for the compensation of Rs. 25 lac initially, which was enhanced to Rs. 36 lac. The Tribunal, as referred to hereinabove, ultimately passed the judgement and award. It is under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 3. We have heard Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.Adeshra, learned Counsel for the original claimants. 4. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is on the aspects of negligence and on contributory negligence. It was submitted that when as per the evidence of the driver, he had given signal while taking ‘U’ turn and the damage to the metador was on the backside, it could not be said to be a case of only 20% negligence, but such negligence ought to have been attributed by the Tribunal to 50% of the deceased. It is submitted that there is an error committed by the Tribunal, which deserves to be interfered with in the present appeal. 5. The examination of the said contention shows that there is no clear material available on record in the panchnama as to whether the damage to the metador was on the backside only. The copy of the panchnama, which has been made available to us during the course of hearing shows that the damage is also on the front-side of the metador. The glasses have been broken and the pieces were lying on the road as well as in the cabin. The copy of the panchnama, which has been made available to us during the course of hearing shows that the damage is also on the front-side of the metador. The glasses have been broken and the pieces were lying on the road as well as in the cabin. However, even if the matter is considered after considering the evidence of the driver, then also in the evidence of the driver, it is only stated that the signal was given. Whether such signal during night time was by visible sign or by light or not is not coming on record. Further, when driver of the metador was to take ‘U’ turn, it was required for him to ensure that the vehicle on the rear side is not given sufficient space and the ‘U’ turn could not be taken abruptly. If the said aspect is considered and the evidence of the case is considered with the discussion made by the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the contributory of 20% negligence of the deceased by the Tribunal is perverse exercise of the discretion, which may attract the appellate jurisdiction of this Court in the present fist appeal. 6. The aforesaid coupled with the two peculiar circumstances; one is that the driver of the larger size of the side vehicle has to take extra care and the evidence does not show as to whether any signal light of the metador was in order or not. 7. Hence, the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted. 8. No other contention is raised. 9. The appeal is meritless. Hence, dismissed.