Hon'ble JHAVERI, J.—The appellants herein- original claimants have preferred the present first appeal being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Junagadh in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 88 of 1985 vide award dated 15.12.1989. 2. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased Trambaklal Mangalji Kanani who was the husban of the appellant no. 1 and the father of the appellants no. 2 to 4 and the son of appellant no. 5 was going on his own scooterto Mendarda for taking over the charge from the Mamlatdar for the said electoral booth with the Polling Officer on pillion. At that time a public carrier no. GTW 1682 came at high speed from the opposite direction and dashed against the scooter. Due to the said accident, the driver as well as the pillion rider of the scooter were thrown off. The scooterist died on the spot and therefore the legal heirs of the deceased filed the claim petition. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the aforesaid award. 3. Mr. Kakkad, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has arrived at the finding that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the public carrier and without holding therein that the deceased had contributed to the negligence the Tribunal has erroneously deducted 15% of the compensation on the ground of alleged contributory negligence on the part of the scooterist. He submitted that the quantum of compensation is also on the lower side. 4. Mr. Thakkar, learned advocate for the respondent supported the order passed by the Tribunal and submitted that no interference is called for. He however could not controvert the issue regarding 15% deduction of compensation on the ground of contributory negligence when no such finding was arrived at. 5. Having heard learned advocate for both the sides, this court is of the view that the Tribunal has wrongly deducted 15% towards contributory negligence on the part of the scooterist in absence of any finding regarding the same. The Tribunal while deciding the issue of negligence in para 7 has observed that it is clearly a case in which the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the public carrier and that the finding of the issue no. 1 is therefore in affirmative. The Tribunal while deciding the issue of negligence in para 7 has observed that it is clearly a case in which the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the public carrier and that the finding of the issue no. 1 is therefore in affirmative. Inspite of the same, the Tribunal while calculating the amount of compensation in para 21 has deducted 15% towards negligence on the part of the driver of the scooter. This is total contradiction to its own finding in para 7. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to 15% of the compensation which was wrongly deducted by the Tribunal. The remaining amount of compensation under different heads are just and proper. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to additional Rs. 26000/- which was deducted by the Tribunal. 6. In the premises aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. The claimants shall be entitled to an additional amount of Rs. 26000/- by way of compensation at 7.5% interest on the said additional amount from the date of application i.e. 15.03.1985 till realisation. The award of the Tribunal is modified accordingly. No costs.