JUDGMENT : G.R. Moolchandani, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 18.6.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in Claim Case No.387/2001 (77/2001) and the Tribunal has passed an award of Rs. 37,500/- with interest at the rate of 6.75%. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant-claimant has filed this appeal. 2. Brief facts relating to the accident defines that the appellant while returning to his home on his Luna, a car bearing registration No. RJ-22-0366 came from Pindawara side and suddenly collided with the moped while turning towards petrol pump, resultantly the appellant felt down and ferried to the hospital in the same car. The car driver was driving the vehicle fastly and negligently so, the accident was occurred, his leg sustained injuries and FIR was lodged under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C., Section 338 I.P.C. was further added. The learned tribunal passed the impugned award for Rs. 37,500/- on the basis of evidence of the appellant-claimant, the tribunal has held that both the drivers were equally liable and accordingly the award is adjudicated contributorily. 3. Submitting the arguments for appellant, learned counsel has said that the tribunal has wrongly read the evidence and has erroneously decided that both the vehicles and drivers were negligent by 50%. The injured appellant was not negligent at all and has suffered a permanent disability of 20%, but the learned tribunal has awarded compensation for permanent disability inadequately referring the evidence adduced by the appellant-claimant, he has submitted that a positive evidence was given before the tribunal that moped driver was going in very slow speed on his correct side and the hitting car came rashly and dashed with the moped, charge sheet was also filed against the car driver. Relying upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jiju Kuruvila and Others v. Kunjujamma Mohan and Others reported in (2013) 9 SCC 166 , he has submitted that the site plan has not rightly been appreciated by the tribunal. The learned tribunal has wrongly read and appreciated the evidence and site spot map and there is no evidence with respect to contributory negligence on the part of moped driver, so-called eye-witness Chhagan was also not produced or called by the respondent and finding to this effect is based on conjectures, so is liable to be reversed. The learned tribunal has wrongly read and appreciated the evidence and site spot map and there is no evidence with respect to contributory negligence on the part of moped driver, so-called eye-witness Chhagan was also not produced or called by the respondent and finding to this effect is based on conjectures, so is liable to be reversed. The tribunal has also not awarded any compensation for future earnings, which are to be increased even in case of retired person and a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for permanent disability must have been awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal may be allowed and the award may be altered as prayed. Per contra, counsel for the respondent relying and quoting the judgment of Pramod Bhai Javari has submitted the entire piece of evidence relating to negligence is to be appreciated in totality, the tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence. Injured has himself omitted narration as to which side, he was proceeding. Learned counsel has also submitted that even permanent disability certificate has not been submitted on prescribed proforma, which is contrary to the Motor Vehicles Rules. Learned counsel has further submitted that the award passed by the tribunal is correct and appeal has got no force. 4. The record of Tribunal discloses that the appellant-claimant has produced two witnesses. Apart from himself, AW-2 Dr. Udai Karan has been produced and Dr. Udai Karan has stated that the upper side of both the bones of left leg were fused wrongly and there was a restriction of 20% in the movement of left knee and slight impediment in normal works and in cross-examination, he has said that it is wrong that the individual sustaining such kind of disability cannot ply bus. AW-1 Narayan Lal, has said that he is a roadways driver and has also very well admitted in his cross-examination that ^^eSa vHkh fljksgh ls fljksgh jksM rFkk fljksgh jksM ls fljksgh jksMost dh cl pykrk gwWaA** 5. AW-1 Narayan Lal, has said that he is a roadways driver and has also very well admitted in his cross-examination that ^^eSa vHkh fljksgh ls fljksgh jksM rFkk fljksgh jksM ls fljksgh jksMost dh cl pykrk gwWaA** 5. Narayan Lal has himself narrated several facts in his statement, which clearly indicate that accident occurred almost in front of petrol pump on the road, which goes from B to A and has been shown as A-B road in Ex.4 site plan and the old bus stand road was towards eastern side and after "Divider" I-K-M road of other side of the "Divider" was leading towards old bus stand, accordingly the statements which have been made by the injured himself are suffice to infer that the appellant-claimant was driver on wrong side, as he has said in his cross-examination that "the car was coming from the side of old bus stand and has also admitted in cross-examination that he was going from I to J", which is divided with a "Divider" upto "H" mark and has further said that ^^;g ckr lgh gS fd vkbZ ls ts dh vksj tkus okyk O;fDr ,e rjQ ls gksdj tk;sxk vkSj ts dh rjQ ls vkus okyk O;fDr ,u dh rjQ ls tk;sxkA** and if the "Admissions" made by the appellant are taken into consideration in view of Exhibit 4 of the spot map, then it is enough to show that the accident occurred at "X" point which was leading towards "I" side from old bus stand, and the "Admissions" made by the appellant-claimant in his evidence establishes that the appellant was using a wrong lane, while going towards old bus stand from the side of petrol pump. 6. In Nagubai Ammal & Ors. v. B. Shama Rao & Ors, AIR 1956 SC 593 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that admission made by a party is admissible and based on evidence, unless it is proved that it had been made under a mistaken belief. 7. It is obligatory on every road user to ply its vehicle in right direction obeying the traffic rules scrupulously and to avoid accidents with all prudence and even to spare human life of such an errant, who advertently or inadvertently emerges on wrong side. There is evident evidence in this case that the injured appellant was ferried to hospital by the same car, which caused the accident. There is evident evidence in this case that the injured appellant was ferried to hospital by the same car, which caused the accident. Meaning thereby the hitting car was being plied at a slow and manageable pace since it stopped after accident and its driver took the injured in this car itself to the hospital. There are "admissions" on the part of the injured appellant that he was going towards old bus stand from petrol pump side, which is obviously wrong side and he used wrong direction to go towards old Bus Stand and sketch map Ex.4 elucidate the facts stated in the evidence to this effect. So the specific "admissions" made by the injured are admissible to arrive at a finding and the learned tribunal has not committed any error in deciding the same. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the finding of contributory negligence, but the quantum of compensation which has been awarded appears to be deficient. 8. In Subulaxmi v. M.D., Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (2012) 10 SCC 177 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: "5. At the outset, it is requisite to be stated that the facts as have been adumbrated are not in dispute. Therefore, first we shall advert to the issue whether the High Court was justified in awarding compensation on a singular head relating to permanent disability and loss of future earning. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Another, 2012 (10) Scale 516 , after referring to Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh (1990) 3 SCC 723 and B. Kothandapani v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., (2011) 6 SCC 420 , this Court expressed the view that compensation can be granted towards permanent disability as well as loss of future earnings, for one head relates to the impairment of person’s capacity and the other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself. The Bench also relied upon Laxman v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. The Bench also relied upon Laxman v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2012 ACJ 191 : (AIR 2012 SC (Civ) 383: 2012 AIR SCW 361) wherein it has been laid down thus:- "The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to accident, loss of earnings and victim’s inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident. Thus, the view expressed by the High Court on this score is not sustainable."” 9. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd – AIR 1995 SC 755 , Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: "....while assessing the non-pecuniary damages, the damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering already suffered and that are likely to be suffered, any future damages for the loss of amenities in life like difficulty in running, participation in active sports, etc., damages on account of inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration, etc., have to be addressed especially in the case of a child victim. For a child, the best part of his life is yet to come. While considering the claim by a victim child, it would be unfair and improper to follow the structured formula as per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act for reasons more than one. The main stress in the formula is on pecuniary damages. For children there is no income. The only indication in the Second Schedule for non-earning persons is to take the notional income as Rs. 15,000/- per year. A child cannot be equated to such a non-earning person. Therefore, the compensation is to be worked out under the non-pecuniary heads in addition to the actual amounts incurred for treatment done and/or to be done, transportation, assistance of attendant, etc. The main elements of damage in the case of child victims are the pain, shock, frustration, deprivation of ordinary pleasures and enjoyment associated with healthy and mobile limbs. The compensation awarded should enable the child to acquire something or to develop a lifestyle which will offset to some extent the inconvenience or discomfort arising out of the disability. The main elements of damage in the case of child victims are the pain, shock, frustration, deprivation of ordinary pleasures and enjoyment associated with healthy and mobile limbs. The compensation awarded should enable the child to acquire something or to develop a lifestyle which will offset to some extent the inconvenience or discomfort arising out of the disability. Appropriate compensation for disability should take care of all the non-pecuniary damages. In other words, apart from this head, there shall only be the claim for the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, transportation, etc." 10. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, IV (2010) ACC 815 (SC) : (2011) 1 SCC 343 , the Court noted (in para 21) that the second schedule appended to MV Act, with reference to Section 163A, inter alia, refers to the first schedule under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 in the context of loss of earning capacity in cases of permanent total or partial disability, and observed (in para 16) thus: "16. The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to `hold an enquiry into the claim' for determining the `just compensation'. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to ascertain the true and correct position so that it can assess the `just compensation'. While dealing with personal injury cases, the Tribunal should preferably equip itself with a Medical Dictionary and a Handbook for evaluation of permanent physical impairment (for example the Manual for Evaluation of Permanent Physical Impairment for Orthopedic Surgeons, prepared by American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons or its Indian equivalent or other authorised texts) for understanding the medical evidence and assessing the physical and functional disability. The Tribunal may also keep in view the first schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some indication about the extent of permanent disability in different types of injuries, in the case of workmen." 11. The Tribunal may also keep in view the first schedule to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 which gives some indication about the extent of permanent disability in different types of injuries, in the case of workmen." 11. Positive evidence is there that the appellant-claimant was very much employed with roadways, plying the roadways buses as a driver even after the injury and Doctor AW-2 has specifically said that because of the dereliction the fusion of the bones united wrongly. 12. Grant of damages is not a bounty but the matrix of awarding compensation is to undone the damage and sufferings actually sustained by the victim. 13. In totality of the facts and evidence discussed above, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to receive a compensation, which is to be divided equally @ 50% each on the basis of equal contributory negligence as under:- S.No. Particulars Compensation 1. Physical and mental agony and discomfort caused because of 20% disability Rs. 2,00,000 2. Food and extra nourishment Rs. 15,000 3. Loss of benefits because of availing leave for four months Rs. 40,000 4. Conveyance expenditure incurred in attending hospitals Rs. 5,000 5. Expenditure for medicines (appellant has submitted bills of around Rs. 11,000/-) including expenses towards future medical expenses Rs. 40,000 Total Rs. 3,00,000 50% of Rs. 3,00,000/- ( - ) 50% = Rs. 1,50,000/- 14. As such the total compensation comes to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) and on the basis of "equal contributory negligency", the appellant-claimant is entitled to receive "half" of aforesaid compensation. Accordingly, the appellant-claimant is entitled to receive Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) and this amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- will fetch interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till actual realization. The amount already paid in terms of award/interim award shall be adjusted. The award of the Tribunal stands modified as above. The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit and pay aforesaid enhanced compensation with interest as above within one months from today per Bank draft favouring the claimant or to deposit the same with the Tribunal and in event of deposit with the Tribunal, the appellant-claimant will be free to receive and seek disbursement from the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed as above with aforesaid modification. There is no order as to costs.