JUDGMENT J.K. Mahashwari, J. 1. This appeal under Section of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed assailing the award dated 17th December, 2004 passed by 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 55/2004. 2. On 20th January, 2004 the claimant was driving a truck bearing registration No. M.P. 06/E-2161 which was loaded with the gas cylinder coming from Guna to Morar and when the said truck reached near Bus Stand Mohana, truck bearing registration No. M.I.H. 7833 coming from opposite direction driven by Respondent No. 1 dashed the said vehicle in a wrong side from in front. The claimant received various injuries and suffered fracture in right and left legs. The report of the said incident was lodged in the Police Station, Mohana by the injured. Due to the said injuries, he suffered permanent disability. A claim petition was filed by the Appellant seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,85,000/-. 3. The Insurance Company by filing the written statement has denied the allegations made in the claim petition and raised the objection that the injured was not having a valid driving licence on the date of accident. It is also submitted that it is not a case of rash and negligence of the Respondents and the injured is also responsible for the accident as apparent from spot map Ext. D/8 and photographs Ext. D/9 and D/10. In such circumstances, the claim petition filed by the claimant is liable to be dismissed. 4. The Claims Tribunal after considering the statement of Dr. R.K. Agrawal (A.W.-2) and the statement of claimant recorded a finding that the injured was 41 years of age. He received permanent disability to the extent of 50% as is apparent from certificate of Medical Board Ext. P/21. A finding has also been recorded by the Tribunal that the injured was getting salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. However, as per certificate Ext. P/21, the permanent disability is to the extent of 50% he is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,70,000/- for future loss, while Rs. 5,000/- for medical and special diet and Rs. 25,000/- for mental pain and suffering. In view of above, the compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been awarded to the claimant. 5. P/21, the permanent disability is to the extent of 50% he is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,70,000/- for future loss, while Rs. 5,000/- for medical and special diet and Rs. 25,000/- for mental pain and suffering. In view of above, the compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- has been awarded to the claimant. 5. Shri Shrinivas Gajendra Gadkar, learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, submits that the Tribunal has committed an error ignoring the documents Ext. D/7, D/8 and D/9. It is submitted that the report of the incident was lodged by the driver of vehicle No. M.I.H. 7833 and as per the spot map, it is the claimant who himself was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and coming from the wrong side dashed the vehicle. The Claims Tribunal committed an error in not considering these material piece of evidence showing the incident whereby appropriate finding of contributory negligence may be arrived at. By placing reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Gupta v. Kishanlal Gupta and Ors. 1991 (1) T.A.C. 17, submitted that this Court while considering the spot map has observed that it is a crucial piece of evidence and it speaks how the accident has taken place and it cannot be ignored. In such circumstances, the finding of contributory negligence may be recorded and the compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal may be reduced. It is further argued by learned Counsel for the Appellant that as per the statement of Dr. R.K. Agrawal (A.W.-2), the finding of permanent disability, as recorded by the Tribunal, is inappropriate. The injured was not having permanent disability on the day when he was examined by the Medical Board. Reliance has been placed in support of this contention on the decision in the cases of Saurabh Kumar Shukla v. Hukum Chand and Ors. 1998 (1) J.L.J. 189 and Kamlesh Bai v. Surya Prakash and Ors. 2003 (3) T.A.C. 535. It is also contended by him that the injured has received only one injury while as per the statement of doctor, the injured was having two injuries, therefore, the certificates issued by the Medical Board cannot be relied upon. In view of above, he prayed that the impugned award may be set aside or in alternative compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal, may be reduced. 6. In view of above, he prayed that the impugned award may be set aside or in alternative compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal, may be reduced. 6. On the other hand, Shri R.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1- claimant, has drawn my attention to the case sheet paper of the hospital, wherein back side of page No. 8, it is mentioned that the injured was having fracture in the left leg while compound fracture in the right leg. Thus, as per the documents available on record, the injured received injuries on both the legs. In this context, statement of Dr. R.P. Agrawal (A.W.-2) is on record. As per the material available on record, it is also contended by him that the doctor has rightly opined regarding permanent disability as the injured is still not in a position to move and is still suffering such disability. My attention has also been drawn to the functioning of the claimant who is present in the Court, and said as per present condition of the injured the doctor's opinion is just and proper as the injured is still having such disability. On the point of contributory negligence, it is urged that the Tribunal has rightly considered the said aspect while passing the impugned award, therefore, the award, as passed by the Tribunal, granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- is just and proper and the appeal filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company may be dismissed. 7. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the FIR lodged by the claimant as well as by the driver of alleged offending vehicle, it reveals that on 20th January, 2004 the accident took place wherein both the vehicle were collided to each other from in front. It is also not in dispute that in the said accident, the claimant received injuries. As per the case sheet papers of the hospital, it is apparent that the injured was having fracture in the left leg as well as compound fracture in the right leg. As per the evidence, it is established that the claimant was driving truck No. M.P. 06/E-2161 and became injured on the spot while driving the truck. Now it is to be seen on the basis of the material available on record, whether the claimant was not negligent in the accident where in he has received injuries. As per the evidence, it is established that the claimant was driving truck No. M.P. 06/E-2161 and became injured on the spot while driving the truck. Now it is to be seen on the basis of the material available on record, whether the claimant was not negligent in the accident where in he has received injuries. In this regard, spot map and FIR lodged by the other side Ext. D/8, indicates that the accident took place in the right side while the truck which was driven by the claimant was at place 'B' and the truck bearing No. M.I.H. 7833 was at place 'A'. Photographs Ext. D/10 and D/11 are available on record whereby the place of accident shown in the map finds support. It is true that negative of photos Ext. D/9, D/10 and D/11 have not been exhibited but at the same time once spot map prepared by the Police supports the said photos, then it cannot be ignored. At this stage it is to be observed that the claimant has not produced the spot map which was prepared by the Police on the report lodged by him. In such a circumstance, in absence of material documents, the documents filed by the Insurance Company Ext. D/8, D/9 and D/10 deserve to be relied upon and in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Gupta (supra), the spot map is required to be treated as a crucial piece of evidence which speaks truth about the accident and may assist in arriving at a conclusion how the incident took place. 8. In view of the forgoing discussion and looking to the spot map, it is apparent that truck No. M.P. 06/E-2161 which was being driven by the claimant was equally responsible for the said accident. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the accident took place by colliding of the vehicles by the negligence of both the truck drivers. The claimant himself was driving one of the trucks and received injuries, however, he is also responsible for the said accident. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the said negligence may be up to the extent of 50-50% each. 9. I have gone through the document of permanent disability Ext. P/21 which has been exhibited by the Tribunal. Dr. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the said negligence may be up to the extent of 50-50% each. 9. I have gone through the document of permanent disability Ext. P/21 which has been exhibited by the Tribunal. Dr. R.P. Agrawal (A.W.-2) has come before the Court and proved the said document. As per the statement of the doctor, it is apparent that the injured was having flaxen deformity in the right leg which is to the extent of 50%. Thus, is apparent that the permanent disability has been proved. The argument, as advanced by learned Counsel for the Appellant, that the said deformity has come on record on account of statement of cross-examination of Dr. R.P. Agrawal (A.W.-2), cannot be accepted. On perusal of para-1 and 3 of the statement of Dr. R.P. Agrawal (A.W.-2), it prima facie reveals that the injured has suffered permanent disability. The said finding is not having any doubt as claimant is present in the Court. He is not in a position to move freely and without help of stick. On verification of the injuries and permanent disability, I accept the opinion of the doctor. In the peculiar facts and on verification by the Court, the certificate issued by the doctor is found to be genuine, therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal of having received the permanent disability to the extent of 50% cannot be said to be contrary to law. 10. In view of the forgoing facts, the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. On accepting his income as Rs. 3,000/- per month, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,70,000/- in the head of future loss accepting permanent disability to the extent of 50%. In view of the finding of contributory negligence as recorded hereinabove, the amount awarded towards future loss of earning is liable to be reduced to the extent of half and it comes to Rs. 1,35,000/-. In other heads the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation. Thus, the total compensation comes to tune of Rs. 1,65,000/- which the claimant is entitled to receive. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. The compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal, is reduced to the extent of Rs. 1,35,000/- and thus, the claimant is entitled to receive total sum of Rs. Thus, the total compensation comes to tune of Rs. 1,65,000/- which the claimant is entitled to receive. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. The compensation, as awarded by the Tribunal, is reduced to the extent of Rs. 1,35,000/- and thus, the claimant is entitled to receive total sum of Rs. 1,65,000/- which shall be paid by the Appellant-Insurance Company alongwith interest as awarded by the Claims Tribunal.