JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the award dated 09.11.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge while awarding the compensation of Rs. 3,05,000/- has reduced the compensation amount by 50% on the ground of contributory negligence of the deceased and has awarded merely Rs. 1,52,500/- to the claimants-appellants, the appellants have approached this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously contended that the bare perusal of the site plan does not reveal the contributory negligence of the deceased. According to the learned counsel, the deceased was turning towards the right side of the road, through a divider on the national highway and had stopped her vehicle at the corner of the divider. While her vehicle was stationery, she was not only hit by the jeep, but was also dragged seventy feet away. The fact that she was dragged seventy feet clearly proves the fact that the jeep was being driven at a high speed. This fact establishes that the negligence was solely on the part of the jeep driver. In order to buttress his contention, the learned counsel has submitted the site plan before this Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel, perused the site plan as well as the impugned award. 4. A bare perusal of the site plan does not show that the vehicle driven by the deceased was parked at the corner of the divider. In fact, the site plan shows that the vehicle of the deceased had almost gone to the middle of the road after turning towards the right. The collusion had not taken on the corner of the divider, but in the middle of the road. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that the deceased had stopped her vehicle at the corner of the divider is not corroborated by the site plan. It is only on the basis of the said site plan that, the learned Tribunal had concluded that the deceased was equally negligent in not stopping to see if any vehicle is coming on the road into which she was turning. Therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in concluding that the case is of contributory negligence. Hence, the deduction of 50% of the compensation cannot be faulted. 5. In this view of the matter, this appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******