JUDGMENT : Devi Prasad Singh, Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II), JJ. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act preferred against the impugned award dated 3.9.2012 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No.316/2007 by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.12, Lucknow. 3. The controversy relates to an accident occurred on 26.07.2007 where by the claimant was going to Raebareli on motorcycle bearing no. UP 32 BB-4468. The claimant's relative Anand Kumar Mishra was a pillion rider. At about 8 O'clock near Khushhali Kisan Kendra, Navodaya Vidyalaya, a bus bearing no. 33A 9245 coming from opposite direction hit the motorcycle, in consequence thereof the claimant suffered grievous injuries. A claim petition was filed where a request for compensation was made. The Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the bus in question. The Tribunal recorded a detailed finding with regard to medical expenses and thereafter awarded compensation. Medical receipts seem to be considered and referred in the impugned award. After considering the evidence including the receipts with regard to medical expenditure and disability certificate, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 4,01,509/- (four lacs one thousand five hundred nine). 4. While assailing the impugned award the learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case of contributory negligence since motorcycle rider tried to over take the bus. Argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant seems to be misconceived and not based on the evidence on record. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that motorcycle and bus both were going on the road to opposite direction from each other. The motorcycle was on the left side but the bus was coming from opposite direction keeping the right side of the road hitting the motorcycle causing the accident. In the incident, the claimant has received grievous injury with 40% of disability. Both have committed fault making a case of contributory negligence. Here the bus driver driving, the bus negligently and rashly going right side of the road causing accident. In such a situation, the Tribunal has rightly fastened liability on the appellant Insurance Company which has insured the bus in question. 5. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned that seems to be appropriately and justly determined by the Tribunal. Here the bus driver driving, the bus negligently and rashly going right side of the road causing accident. In such a situation, the Tribunal has rightly fastened liability on the appellant Insurance Company which has insured the bus in question. 5. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned that seems to be appropriately and justly determined by the Tribunal. After considering the evidence on record the Tribunal taken into account the medical receipts and given their detail at page 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the impugned award. Monthly income of the claimant has been assessed notionally to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- per month in the light of the case reported in 2008 (12) SCC 165 , Laxmi Devi & Others v. Mohammad Tabbar & Another, 2008 (12) SCC 165 , there appears to be no perversity or illegality in the impugned award. 6. In view of above, we do not find any reason for interference with the impugned award. 7. Appellant is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount in terms of award within two months and the tribunal shall release the compensation in terms of award within two months thereafter. Let the amount deposited in this court be remitted to the trial court forthwith, say within one month by the Registry of this Court. 8. Subject to above, the appeal is dismissed.