JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. Being aggrieved by the award dated 26.8.2006 passed by the First Additional M.A.C.T., Mandsaur in Claim Case No. 242 of 2005 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was allowed and compensation of Rs. 2,62,636 was assessed on account of injuries sustained by the appellant, out of which 50 per cent amount was deducted on the ground of contributory negligence, present appeal has been filed. Short facts of the case are that the appellant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal alleging that on 23.7.2005 at about 6 p.m. while appellant along with his friend Prakash was going from Mandsaur to Dhudka on his motor cycle at the relevant time, opposite to Pankaj Dal Mills (Daloda), met with an accident to the truck bearing registration No. MP 09-KA 1984 which was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 1. The truck was owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. As a result of the accident appellant sustained grievous injuries. It was alleged that after preliminary treatment at Mandsaur the appellant was shifted to Ahmedabad where the appellant was hospitalised for a period of 3 months. The right leg of the appellant was amputated above knee, length of the right leg after amputation was 13". It is submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,62,636, the break-up of which is as under : Loss of earning capacity Rs. 1,02,000 Medical expenses Rs. 50,636 Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000 Permanent disability Rs. 1,00,000 Total Rs. 2,62,636 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that out of the aforesaid amount, 50 per cent was deducted on account of contributory negligence. It is submitted that the amount awarded is grossly inadequate. Similarly, deduction of 50 per cent amount is not in accordance with law. The learned counsel submits that appellant has spent Rs. 33,296 towards his treatment for which medical bills have been filed before this court along with the application under Order 41, rule 27, Civil Procedure Code. It is submitted that the certificate has been issued by Dr. Sharad Jain to the effect that appellant is having stump of amputated right lower limb above knee which is more than six months old and ready for artificial limb of good quality. It is submitted that cost of artificial limb is Rs. 1,61,700. It is submitted that the certificate has been issued by Dr. Sharad Jain to the effect that appellant is having stump of amputated right lower limb above knee which is more than six months old and ready for artificial limb of good quality. It is submitted that cost of artificial limb is Rs. 1,61,700. It is submitted that in all the heads the amount awarded is grossly inadequate. Apart from this, the deduction of 50 per cent is also illegal. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision of this court in the matter of Paramjit Kaur and Another Vs. Murarilal Shankya and Others, (2005) ACJ 401, wherein it is held that burden to prove that driver of the offending vehicle was not negligent was upon the driver. In case the driver did not enter the witness-box to prove that there was no negligence on his part, it was held that the claimants are entitled to compensation. Further reliance is placed on a decision of this court in the matter of Manjo Bee v. Sajjad Khan, 2007 ACJ 737 (MP), wherein collision between a truck and motor cycle resulting in death of motorcyclist and injuries to two pillion riders, neither the driver of truck nor any other person was examined, Division Bench of this court has held that negligence of motorcyclist could not be inferred from the absence of his licence or from the fact that there were three persons on the motor cycle and the finding of contributory negligence was set aside. Learned counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded is on lower side. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision in the matter of Yadu Bansh Singh v. Pramod Kumar Tapariya, 2009 ACJ 644 (Jha), wherein a Division Bench of Jharkhand High Court in a case of amputation of right leg at middle of thigh awarded Rs. 6,00,000. It is submitted that appeal filed by appellant be allowed and the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding contributory negligence be set aside and the amount be enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the appellant was not having driving licence. 6,00,000. It is submitted that appeal filed by appellant be allowed and the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal regarding contributory negligence be set aside and the amount be enhanced. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the appellant was not having driving licence. Apart from this, in the written statement, appellant himself has admitted that at the time when the accident occurred, appellant was under the impression that the dumper which was going ahead is giving the side to the appellant for overtaking but at that time the truck which was coming from the opposite direction dashed the appellant. It is submitted that in all the facts and circumstances of the case, when the appellant himself is admitting as to under what circumstances the accident occurred, no further evidence was required for ascertaining under what circumstances accident took place. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal committed no error in holding that it was a case of contributory negligence for which the appellant was liable to the extent of 50 per cent. So far as compensation is concerned, it is submitted that the appellant was working as a peon in a gram panchayat. It is submitted that in spite of the fact that learned Tribunal has calculated the earnings on the ground that the appellant was working as blacksmith and assessed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 500 per month which is not permissible. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case so far as application of artificial limb is concerned, since the appellant is willing to fix an artificial limb, therefore, it is prayed that appropriate amount be awarded on that account. It is submitted appeal be dismissed. 4. From perusal of record it is evident that appellant himself has admitted that at the time when the accident occurred appellant was under the impression that the dumper which was going ahead is giving the side to the appellant for overtaking but at that time the offending vehicle which was coming from the opposite direction dashed the appellant, but the driver of the dumper has not come forward to give any evidence. Similarly, no investigation was got done by the respondent No. 3 to prove as to under what circumstances the accident occurred. Similarly, no investigation was got done by the respondent No. 3 to prove as to under what circumstances the accident occurred. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal committed error in holding the contributory negligence to the extent of 50 per cent. So far as amount of compensation is concerned, in all the heads looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal appears to be inadequate. It is true that the appellant is in the job but at the same time since there is amputation of right leg of the appellant, therefore, the appellant has lost enjoyment of life. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this court the appellant is entitled for the following amount : Medical expenses which includes future medical expenses Rs. 1,25,000 Cost of artificial limb Rs. 1,75,000 Transportation Rs. 25,000 Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000 Special diet Rs. 25,000 Expenses incurred on attendants Rs. 25,000 Loss of income for the period appellant was under treatment Rs. 2,000 Loss of expectation and enjoyment of life Rs. 2,00,000 Total Rs. 6,25,000 6. It is true that there is no evidence in rebuttal to prove that under what circumstances the accident occurred but at the same time the statement made by the appellant himself cannot be ignored wherein the appellant has stated that he was having no licence. Moreover, the accident occurred at that time when appellant was overtaking the dumper. It appears that it was the error of judgment. However, since the appellant was also negligent in overtaking and also was driving without licence, therefore, the appellant is negligent to some extent. However, the negligence to the extent of 50 per cent assessed by the learned Tribunal is on higher side which is reduced to the extent of 25 per cent. Thus the appellant shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 after deducting the negligence at the rate of 25 per cent. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum. Learned Tribunal is directed that out of the aforesaid amount first a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 be released to the appellant so that the appellant can fix the artificial limb. 5,00,000 after deducting the negligence at the rate of 25 per cent. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum. Learned Tribunal is directed that out of the aforesaid amount first a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 be released to the appellant so that the appellant can fix the artificial limb. 80 per cent of the rest of the amount shall be deposited in a fixed deposit in the name of appellant in the nearest nationalised bank in the area where the appellant is residing, with the condition that the bank will not permit any loan or advance. Interest on the said amount shall be credited on monthly basis in S.B. Account of appellant, which shall be opened by the appellant from where appellant can withdraw the amount as per his needs. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.