JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal by the claimant-appellant is directed against the award dated 04.06.2003, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur ('the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.158/1999. 2. By the award impugned, the Tribunal has assessed the loss of the claimant-appellant for the injuries sustained in a vehicular accident at Rs. 1,86,000/-, particularly with reference to 55.60% permanent disablement of lower limb but then, has awarded him compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,20,900/- on the finding of his 35% contributory negligence. 3. Assailing the award aforesaid and seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant has contend that the Tribunal had been too restrictive in assessing the loss suffered by the claimant-appellant for the grievous and multiple injuries sustained in the accident which resulted in 55.60% permanent disablement of the left lower limb. The learned counsel has strenuously argued that even after making a comparatively lower side assessment of loss, the Tribunal reduced the amount of compensation by 35% with a finding on contributory negligence against the appellant without appreciating that the scooter driven by the appellant was hit on the rear by the vehicle belonging to the respondents; and, in the given fact situation, no such finding of contributory negligence could have been returned against the appellant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has duly supported the award impugned. 4. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, this Court is clearly of the view that the award made by the Tribunal remains justified and no case for enhancement is made out. 5. An examination of the site plan (Ex.4) prepared during investigation in the matter with other evidence on record clearly makes out that the accident occurred on the main road where the bus in question was coming from north to south whereas the appellant, riding a scooter, was coming from the southern direction and was taking a turn towards the lane on the east. The bus is said to have hit the scooter on its rear. Though it appears that the offending bus was in a comparatively higher speed but then, it was coming from the opposite direction and the appellant was taking a turn towards his right hand side; and in the process was crossing the road on its entire width. The bus is said to have hit the scooter on its rear. Though it appears that the offending bus was in a comparatively higher speed but then, it was coming from the opposite direction and the appellant was taking a turn towards his right hand side; and in the process was crossing the road on its entire width. In the given situation, it was definitely expected of the appellant that he would take all the care and caution by either waiting until the on-coming bus had passed by or crossing the entire road at the earlier point of time so as to avoid the two vehicles coming dangerously close to each other. The appellant had, obviously, omitted to take such a care and hence, his scooter came to be hit on the rear. In the given set of circumstances, the appellant cannot be absolved of his contributory negligence. The Tribunal has returned the finding on contributory negligence of the appellant after due appreciation of the evidence in the following:- " uD'kk ekSdk ds voyksdu ls ;g Hkh Li"V gksrk gS fd cl viuh lgh fn'kk esa py jgh Fkh blfy;s ifjfLFkfr;ka ;g ldsar nsrh gSa fd ;g nq?kZVuk vdsys cl pkyd dh mis{kk ds dkj.k gh ?kfVr ugha gqbZ gS cfYd Lo;a vkosnd dh Hkh bl nq?kZVuk esa va'knk;h mis{kk jgh gS D;ksafd cl lgh fn'kk esa py jgh Fkh vkSj ;fn LdwVj pkyd vkosnd iw.kZ lrdZrk vkSj lko/kkuh ls okgu pykrk rks ;g nq?kZVuk Vkyh tk ldrh Fkh D;ksafd nq?kZVuk eksM+ ij ml le; gqbZ Fkh tc fd vkosnd LdwVj pkyd eksM+ ij ?kwe jgk Fkk vkSj og cl dks vkrh ns[kdj lko/kkuh vkSj lrdZrk cjrrk rFkk vius okgu dks jksdrk o cl pkyd Hkh LdwVj dks vkrs gq;s ns[kdj cl dks fu;af=r djrk rks ;g nq?kZVuk Vkyh tk ldrh FkhA vr% ge ekeys ds rF; vkSj ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s bl n?kZVuk ds fy, cl pkyd dh 65 izfr'kr o LdwVj pkyd vkosnd ds 35 izfr'kr mis{kk vo/kkfjr djrs gSA " The findings aforesaid are neither unjustified nor contrary to the facts and the material available on record. In fact, on a close scrutiny of the matter, this Court is of the view that the contributory negligence of the appellant is not only writ large on the face of record but, its proportion could be taken even more than 35%. In fact, on a close scrutiny of the matter, this Court is of the view that the contributory negligence of the appellant is not only writ large on the face of record but, its proportion could be taken even more than 35%. Viewed from any angle, no case for deleting the finding on contributory negligence or for reduction of the proportion taken by the Tribunal is made out. 6. So far the quantum of loss is concerned, when the appellant has been shown engaged in a Government job and there has not been any evidence of reduction of his emoluments, the assessment as made by the Tribunal cannot be said to be unjustified. In an overall analysis, the assessment of the loss and the resultant award has not been too low or inadequate so as to call for interference in appeal. In the result, the appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.Appeal Dismissed *******