Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—Claimant has preferred this appeal dissatisfied with award dated 30.01.2010 of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Bundi, in MAC Case No.110/2008, by which learned Tribunal has assessed total compensation at Rs.6,52,220/- but rejected the claim on the ground that the claimant has failed to prove that he got injured and sustained permanent disability in an accident took place on account of negligence on the part of driver of Roadways Bus No.RJ-08-P-0194, which was being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently. However, since the vehicle was found involved in the accident, learned Tribunal did not order for refund of the interim award of Rs.25,000/- to non-claimants, which was already paid to the claimant. 2. Facts, in brief, stated in the claim petition, are that on 30.01.2006 at about 5.00 PM the claimant was going from Naya Gaon towards Taleda by a motorcycle with moderate speed keeping it in its correct side. Suddenly a Roadways Bus No.RJ-08-P-0194 came from behind. The said bus was being driven by respondent No.1 in a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner. The said bus, with its left rear portion, hit the motorcycle and it was because its driver suddenly took the bus towards left side. As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained serious injuries. An FIR was also lodged by the claimant and the police seized the motorcycle in a damaged condition. 3. The appellant is aggrieved of the finding recorded by learned Tribunal on Issue No.1, which was to the effect "whether the driver-non-claimant No.1 caused the accident on 30.01.2006 by driving the vehicle No.RJ-08-P-0194 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, as a result of which claimant Deepak Gautam sustained injuries and permanent disability?" 4. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that learned Tribunal has erred in recording a finding on Issue No.1 that the accident took place on account of the appellant's driving the motorcycle rashly and negligently. Learned Tribunal observed that accident took place because the appellant was talking on cell phone while driving the motorcycle and, in that process, he could not control the motorcycle and dashed against the bus. Learned Tribunal has failed to consider that if rear right portion of the bus would have struck the motorcycle, the damage must be on its right side. Learned Tribunal has failed to consider that if rear right portion of the bus would have struck the motorcycle, the damage must be on its right side. Learned Tribunal has totally ignored the aspect that after hitting by the bus the motorcycle fell down and its left portion touched the road with force and because of that the left side of the motorcycle was damaged. The nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant suggest that after hitting by the rear left portion of the bus, the appellant fell down and sustained injuries on left side of his body. Learned Tribunal has also erred in holding that the appellant was talking on cell phone as there is no such evidence on record except the oral evidence of the witness examined on behalf of the respondents. This finding is based on assumption that some persons while driving motorcycle talk on cell phones. It is therefore prayed that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be awarded compensation. 5. Core issue that would decide fate of the appeal is whether it was own negligence of claimant-appellant, due to which the accident took place or that it is a case of contributory negligence? 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding the claimant-appellant was fully responsible for the accident. It has not considered statement of claimant-appellant (AW-1), wherein he stated that the bus hit him from its rear portion of left side and as a result of which the motorcycle fell down. The claimant denied that he would have been talking on cell phone while driving the motorcycle. If the motorcycle would have dashed against rear right portion of the bus, then damage must be on its right side, whereas the damage was on the left side of the motorcycle. In the present case the motorcycle, after hitting by the bus from its rear left portion, fell down and left portion of the motorcycle came with contact of the road with force. The finding of the learned Tribunal that the appellant, while driving the motorcycle, was talking on cell phone, is based on assumption that generally persons talk on cell phone while driving motorcycles. The finding of the learned Tribunal that the appellant, while driving the motorcycle, was talking on cell phone, is based on assumption that generally persons talk on cell phone while driving motorcycles. So far as statement of NAW-3 Ramesh Verma is concenred, the situation of the shop does not make it possible that he could have seen the accident. It has been admitted by him that he was not summoned by the court and he had come to the court on request of a known person of respondent No.1. All the three witnesses examined on behalf of the non-claimants, have similarly stated that the appellant was talking on cell phone while driving the motorcycle. These witnesses stated that the bus was stationed at a place then how these persons could have seen that the appellant was coming from behind from rear left side of the bus and he was talking on cell phone. NAW-3 Ramesh Verma has stated that his wine shop is situated thirty feet away from the place of accident. He deposed that the passengers get down on opposite side of his shop. A bus has its exit door at its left side, which means the motorcyclist, as per NAW-3, dashed against the bus on its right side and had he dashed against the bus on its right side then he would have fallen on right side, whereas there is damage on the motorcycle on its left side and the injuries sustained by the appellant also suggest so. In the circumstances, it cannot be accepted that it was a case of total negligence on the part of claimant motorcyclist and there was no negligence at all on the part of the bus driver. Deceased certainly was responsible for contributory negligence. The evidence shows that it was a case of composite negligence in equal proportion of both the sides. In these circumstances, the finding of the learned Tribunal holding the appellant hundred percent negligent for the accident, cannot be allowed to sustain, and it is held to be a case of composite negligence in equal proportion on both sides. 7. Learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation at Rs.6,52,220/- after discussing the evidence on record, which has not been challenged. Keeping in view the contributory negligence of both, the claimant-appellant and the driver of the roadways bus, held the claimant-appellant entitled to receive half of that amount i.e. Rs.3,26,110/-. 7. Learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation at Rs.6,52,220/- after discussing the evidence on record, which has not been challenged. Keeping in view the contributory negligence of both, the claimant-appellant and the driver of the roadways bus, held the claimant-appellant entitled to receive half of that amount i.e. Rs.3,26,110/-. Ordered accordingly. The appellant has already been paid the amount of Rs.25,000/- as interim award, which shall be adjusted against payable compensation to him. The appellant shall also be entitled to receive interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. 8. Compliance of the award be made within a period of three months from the date a copy of the judgment is produced before the respondent Corporation. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.