JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed by the aggrieved respondent/appellant herein, against the award pronounced, upon, MAC Petition No. 32-N/2 of 2006, (i) whereunder, vis-a-vis, the compensation amount, as stood determined qua the claimant/respondent herein, the, apt indemnificatory liability thereof stood fastened, upon, him, (ii) whereas the claimant/respondent herein/cross-objector has preferred cross-objections, vis-a-vis, the impugned award, whereunder, he has sought reversal of the award, (iii) whereunder 50% deduction was meted, vis-a-vis, compensation amount determined qua him by the learned tribunal, on the ground of his not at the relevant time rather wearing, a, helmet, whereupon, hence he would rather hence suffer, a, disability less than the one as detailed in the apt disability certificate, borne, in Ex.PW5/A. 2. The prime argument, which is reared before this Court by the learned counsel for the aggrieved appellant, is, centered, upon, (a) the findings adversarial to the appellant herein rendered, upon, issue No.1, appertaining to the claimant sustaining injuries, owing to the rash and negligent manner of driving of the offending vehicle, by the appellant herein, rather being infirm. The counsel for the appellant herein, in making the aforesaid submission has canvassed that (a) with the Judicial Magistrate concerned, in his verdict, borne in Ex.RW1/A, acquitting the appellant herein, for, a charge under Section 279 of the IPC, and, his making observations therein qua it being a case of contributory negligence; (b) thereupon he submits that the evidence adduced by the claimant/respondent herein qua the relevant accident standing sparked, by, the rash and negligent manner of driving, of, the apt vehicle by the appellant, hence getting scuttled, besides waned, (c) rather evidence adduced by the claimant in propagation of his espousal qua the claimant/respondent herein while driving his scooter, his driving it rashly and negligently, (d) and his striking the afore scooter against the right rear of the parking light of the van, and, his thereafter getting perplexed, and, the afore scooter brushing against the tyres of the right side of the van, resulting in his losing his balance, and, his falling onto the road, whereafter, his sustaining injuries as reflected in the afore disability certificate, rather warranting meteing, of, credence thereto. 3. 3. However, the aforesaid submission cannot be accepted, (i) as the findings recorded by the criminal Court, and, as embodied in Ex.RW1/A being not binding upon the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, while trying a claim petition, rather it being incumbent, upon, this Court to analyse the credibility, of, the evidence as adduced in propagation, of, the claimant's claim. (b) Consequently, dehors the verdict of acquittal, rendered by the criminal Court, vis-a-vis, the appellant herein, this Court proceeds to fathom, the, comparative credibility of the evidence adduced by the claimant, and, by the respondent/appellant herein. PW-4, Chattar Singh, an ocular witness to the occurrence, while, stepping into the witness box, has supported the claimant's version, vis-avis, the relevant accident, by making disclosures, qua the appellant herein without adhering to the standards of due care and caution, (i) and, despite his being expected, to, from the mirror occurring in the van, to, hence sight the vehicles, coming from the rear, his negligently opening the door of the van, whereagainst, the scooter driven by the accused rather collided, (ii) and, in consequence thereof he fell onto the road, and, sustained injuries on his person, as detailed in the aforesaid disability certificate. The deposition of PW-4, as, comprised in his examination-in-chief, has, remained unscathed during the course of his cross-examination, hence, galvanizes immense vigour. The deposition of PW-4, an ocular witness to the occurrence mobilises further corroboration, from, the prime, and, paramount evidence, comprised in Ex. Rx, exhibit whereof is a report of, the, mechanical expert, who carried, the, mechanical examination of the offending vehicle, and, who therein rather has rendered a clear echoing qua, the, occurrence of a dent inside the window, of, the front door, of, the offending vehicle. The afore occurrence, of, a dent inside the window, of, the front door, of, the offending vehicle, when hence, stands emphatically voiced in Ex. The afore occurrence, of, a dent inside the window, of, the front door, of, the offending vehicle, when hence, stands emphatically voiced in Ex. Rx, thereupon, an inference, is, filliped qua (I) the occurrence, of, a dent inside the window, of, the front door, of the offending vehilce, obviously being causable thereon, only upon, the appellant herein, despite, holding capacity, to, from, the mirror occurring inside the van, hence, sight the scooter, whereon the claimant was astride, (ii) whereas, in open breach of the standards of the due care and caution, his, opening the door of the van, thereupon, obviously hence leading the scooter whereon the claimant was astride, to rather collide against the front door, of, the offending vehicle. The afore firm evidence cannot be belittled either by EX.RW1/A, exhibit whereof comprises a verdict rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, nor by the evidence in repudiation thereto, as, adduced by the appellant herein. 4. The disability entailed, upon, the claimant/respondent herein, in sequel to the afore collision which occurred inter se, the, van owned by the appellant, and, the scooter whereon, the claimant was astride, stands reflected in the apt disability certificate borne in Ex.PW5/A, to be 100% disability, vis-a-vis, the eye sight of the claimant. The afore critical, and, grave nature of the disability entailed upon the claimant, constrained the learned tribunal to assess compensation in a sum, of, Rs.8,81,403.00, vis-a-vis, him. However, vis-a-vis, the aforesaid amount of compensation, the learned tribunal, for want of the claimant, at the relevant time, wearing, a, helmet, for hence diminishing, the, extent of disability, thereupon, reduced 50% therefrom, and, rather awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.4,40,701/-. The aforesaid reduction, is, grossly untenable, (a) given this Court squarely and pointedly fixing the apt culpability, of, tort, only, upon the appellant, and, when hence the entire liability towards the total amount of compensation, is, enjoined to be fastened upon the appellant; (b) thereupon, in the learned tribunal meteing 50% deduction thereto, has committed, a, gross fallibility. The meteing of deduction, vis-a-vis, the compensation amount of Rs.8,81,403/- rather would stand validated, only, if the claimant had contributed to the occurrence, whereas, his neither contributing to the accident nor his being the tortfeasor, hence, reinforcingly, the, meteing of deduction, to, the extent of 50%, vis-a-vis, the compensation amount, by the learned tribunal, is, ingrained with, a, gross fallacy. 5. 5. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant appeal, and, it is dismissed, whereas, the cross-objections filed by the claimant/cross-objector are allowed, and, the impugned award, is, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Accordingly, the claimant/cross-objector/respondent herein, is, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs.8,81,403.00 (Rs. Eight Lacs, eighty one thousand four hundred and three only) along with pending and future interest @ 7.5%, from, the date of petition till the date, of, deposit, of the compensation amount. The amount of interim compensation, if awarded, be adjusted in the aforesaid compensation amount, at the time of final payment. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.