JUDGMENT N. Ananda, J.—This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation. I have heard learned Counsel for parties. I have been taken through evidence and the impugned award. 2. The Tribunal having regard to the fact that claimant unmindful of vehicles plying on road was crossing the road has held that claimant guilty of contributory negligence to extent of 30%. 3. The Tribunal has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Koosappa Poojari Vs. K. Sadabba and Others, (2004) ACJ 2102 . The Tribunal has relied on rough sketch marked as Ex. P. 4. The contents of this document have not been disputed by either party. The accident took place at 9 a.m., on 19-2-2010 near the intersection of K.R. Puram Railway Station Road and Tin Factory Road. The claimant was crossing road from South to North. The rider of offending vehicle was proceeding in the direction of west to east. The claimant had crossed major portion of road. The rider of offending vehicle having approached junction had not reduced speed of offending vehicle. There is no evidence on record to show that junction was manned by police at the time of accident. 4. The learned Counsel for Insurance Company, relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Koosappa Poojari, would submit that claimant had crossed road where he was not supposed to cross road. In the circumstances, Tribunal was justified in holding that claimant was guilty of contributory negligence to an extent of 30%. 5. In the aforestated judgment, claimant was crossing Mangalore-Udupi Road. The accident had taken place on a Highway, where vehicles would normally move at high speed. In the case on hand, accident had taken place within city limits. The claimant was crossing road near a junction. The rider of offending vehicle on approaching junction should have reduced speed of vehicle. The rider of vehicle owed a duty towards safety of pedestrians. The claimant had crossed a major portion of road and he was few feet away from footpath. Therefore, Tribunal was not justified in holding claimant guilty of contributory negligence to extent of 30%. The claimant had failed to observe vehicles plying on the road before crossing road. Therefore, I hold that claimant was guilty of contributory negligence to extent of 15% and rider of offending vehicle to extent of 85%. 6. Therefore, Tribunal was not justified in holding claimant guilty of contributory negligence to extent of 30%. The claimant had failed to observe vehicles plying on the road before crossing road. Therefore, I hold that claimant was guilty of contributory negligence to extent of 15% and rider of offending vehicle to extent of 85%. 6. The claimant had suffered fractures of both bones of left lower limb. The claimant was aged about 30 years at the time of accident. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,55,000/- under following heads: 7. The claimant was working as a Salesman. His job involves movement from place to place. The Medical Officer has assessed permanent physical disability at 16% of left lower limb. The Tribunal has determined income of claimant at Rs. 4,500/- per month. The claimant had suffered fractures of both bones of left lower limb. The residual effects of fractures will have impact on his earning capacity. Therefore, I determine permanent physical disability of whole body at 8%. Thus, claimant will be entitled to compensation of Rs. 73,440/- (Rs. 4,500/- x 12 x 17 x 0.08) under the head "loss of earning capacity and loss of future earnings". This amount is in substitution of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- awarded by Tribunal towards "disability". The compensation awarded by Tribunal under the head "loss of amenities and enjoyment of life" is enhanced to Rs. 25,000/-. 8. Thus, compensation awarded by Tribunal is modified as follows.-- In the discussion made supra, I have held that claimant was guilty of contributory negligence to extent of 15%. Therefore, claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,85,674/-. In the result, I pass the following.-- ORDER The appeal is accepted in part. The impugned award is modified. The claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,85,674/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The impugned award as it relates to payment and investment is confirmed.