JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the judgment and award dated 14.6.2010 passed by the learned M.A.C.T., Rajsamand in Claim Case No. 115/2009. 2. The short facts of the case are that due to accident, son of the appellant Kana @ Kanhaiya died. The present appellant, along with respondent No. 4 filed a claim petition, which was partially allowed and at the same time, 30% contributory negligence has been attributed to the deceased. Hence, this appeal. 3. The contention of the present appellant is that while deciding issues Nos. 1 and 2, contributory negligence up to the extent of 30% has been attributed to the deceased, which is erroneous as the deceased was the pillion rider and he has not in any way contributed in the accident and no liability could be fastened upon him. His further contention is that looking to the law laid down in Lata Wadhva v. State of Bihar, 2001 ACC 316 (SC) , the compensation is very meager and it should be enhanced up to Rs. 2,25,000/-. 4. Per contra, the contention of the Insurance Company is that the present petitioner, who is the father of the deceased, was driving the motor-cycle. Four persons were sitting on the motor-cycle and a clear finding has been recorded by the learned Tribunal that the present appellant was negligent in driving the vehicle and it also contributed to the accident and 30% liability has been rightly fastened on the present appellant. 5. The contention of the present appellant is that if the driver of the vehicle is laible, then no liability can be fastened on the pillion rider and reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered in the case of Heer Singh & Ors. v. Jai Singh & Ors., RLW 2005(1) Raj. 236 , wherein it has been held that the deceased was sitting as pillion rider on the back of the moped vehicle driven by his son, no negligence on the part of the deceased is proved, then it is not a case of contributory negligence. It will be termed as composite negligence and the claimants are entitled for entire amount. 6. Further reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered in the case of Shefali Devnath @ Anjali (Smt.) & Anr. It will be termed as composite negligence and the claimants are entitled for entire amount. 6. Further reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered in the case of Shefali Devnath @ Anjali (Smt.) & Anr. v. Ram Kumar & Ors., 2006(1) RLW 801 , wherein distinction between contributory and composite negligence has been explained. 7. On the strength of the above, the contention of the preset appellant is that the deceased, who was only a child and not driving the vehicle, has not contributed in the accident and no liability can be fastened on account of negligence of the driver of the vehicle. 8. Per contra, the contention of the Insurance Company is that here in the present case, the facts are peculiar. The father, who is the only claimant in this claim petition, has contributed towards accident and he cannot take benefit of his own negligence and his further contention is that the claim petition has also been filed by the claimant-appellant himself for the injuries suffered by him in the accident and in that Claim Petition No. 113/2009, finding has been recorded against the present appellant, which has not been challenged by the appellant. Hence, no different finding can be recorded in the matter and reliance has been placed on the judgment delivered in the case of New India Assurance Co. v. Kheta Ram & Ors., 2003 R.A.R. 154 (Raj.) , wherein it has been held that if while deciding the issue, if specific finding has been recorded by the Tribunal that the driver was contributorily negligent, then the Tribunal cannot give a contrary finding. 9. Here, in the present case also, the learned Tribunal was categorically of the view that the present appellant has contributed towards the accident and negligence has been attributed to him. Apart from this, the Insurance Company has relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Roshan Lal v. Deva Ram & Ors., 2009(1) ACTC (Raj.) 70 , wherein it has been held that since three persons were riding on a motor-cycle, then it can safely be presumed that there was contributory negligence on the part of the persons riding on the motor-cycle. 10. Without going into the question of contributory and composite negligence, it is not in dispute that four persons were riding on the motor-cycle and the deceased was one of them. 10. Without going into the question of contributory and composite negligence, it is not in dispute that four persons were riding on the motor-cycle and the deceased was one of them. Then, looking at the law laid down in Roshanlals case (supra), the deceased has also contributed towards the accident and at the same time, the appellant, who was the driver of the vehicle, has also contributed to the accident and he cannot take benefit of his own mis-deed. Hence, the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability of 30% on the learned Tribunal of the vehicle and proportionately the amount has been reduced. 11. The other contention of the appellant is that only Rs. 1,80,000/- has been awarded as compensation and looking to the law laid down in Lata Wadhva's case (supra), the learned Tribunal should have awarded Rs. 2,25,000/-. The learned Tribunal has relied upon Smt. Malti & Ors. v. M.K. Basu & Ors., MACD 2008 (1) Raj. 105 , and looking to the fact that the deceased was 12 years of age and he was average student and studying the Class 3rd and facts of Lata Wadhva's case (supra) were quite different from the case in hand, Rs. 1,80,000/- have rightly been awarded. 12. The appellant has relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of S.C. Mittal & Ors. v. R.S.R.T.C. & Ors., 2005(5) RLW 190 , wherein looking to the facts, appropriate amount has been ordered. But, here in the present case, after considering the facts on the case, a reasonable and fair amount has been awarded. 13. Hence, looking at the above, there is no need to interfere with the impugned award and therefore, this appeal is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******