JUDGMENT V. Srishananda, J. - Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard and disposed of by this order. 2. The claimant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge and AMACT, Belagavi, passed in MVC No.756/2012, dated 04.09.2015 seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as under : It is contended by the claimant that on 19.06.2011 at about 15.15 hours, near Yallammadevi temple, near Gaddanakeri cross on State Highway No.20, the driver of the bus bearing No.KA-28-F-1133, owned by respondent No.1 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle bearing Regn.No.-KA-22-W-9819 ridden by the claimant, resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant. 4. It is further contended that the claimant took treatment in different hospitals and number of surgeries were conducted by fixing implants. It is further contended that the claimant could not appear for the final year automobile engineering examinations on account of the accidental injuries and he lost an academic year and sought for awarding suitable compensation 5. On issuance of notice, respondentcorporation appeared before the tribunal and filed written statement and contended that the negligent riding of the motorcycle by the claimant is the cause for accident and denied the petition averments and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 6. Before the tribunal, in order to substantiate the averments made in claim petition, the claimant examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the petition averments. He has relied on the documentary evidence and marked vide Ex.P1 to 74. 7. On behalf of respondent nobody was examined, nor any documentary evidence placed on record. 8. The tribunal appreciating the entire material on record, has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.4,84,000/- with simple interest @ 9% p.a. 9. In this appeal, it is the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant claimant that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is too low and meager and sought for enhancement of compensation. He further contended that the tribunal has taken 60% contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and 40% on the part of the bus, which is contrary to law and sought for modification of the award. 10. He further contended that the tribunal has taken 60% contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and 40% on the part of the bus, which is contrary to law and sought for modification of the award. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the KSRTC contended that the judgment of the tribunal in granting Rs.12,40,000/- itself is on higher side, especially on the head of future unhappiness to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Insofar as the contention regarding contributory negligence is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent points out that while overtaking another vehicle, rider of the motorcycle himself came on extreme right side of the road, resulting in the accident and they prayed for reduction of the compensation awarded by the tribunal. 12. In view of the rival contentions urged by both the parties, the only point would arise for consideration is: 1. Whether the appellant has made out good grounds to enhance the compensation amount by altering the percentage of contributory negligence? 13. Answer to the above point is negative for the following : REASONS 14. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the tribunal has erred in fixing the contributory negligence at 60% on the part of the claimant and reasoning recorded by the tribunal in this regard is un-sustainable. 15. To substantiate the same, the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submitted that before the tribunal he has relied on the reports of Investigating agency marked at Ex.P3 and its enclosures. 16. Per contra, it is the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that based on the material available on record tribunal has rightly assessed the contributory negligence at 60% on the part of the claimant who was riding the motorcycle bearing No.KA- 22-W-9819. 17. On perusal of the trial court records, it is crystal clear that the sketch to depict the detail scene of occurrence is not placed on record. 18. However, on perusal of the other material on record, namely the spot mahazar annexed toEx.P3 and the complaint averments, it is crystal clear that in the process of overtaking another vehicle, the claimant had moved far away from his lane at the time of accident. 19. 18. However, on perusal of the other material on record, namely the spot mahazar annexed toEx.P3 and the complaint averments, it is crystal clear that in the process of overtaking another vehicle, the claimant had moved far away from his lane at the time of accident. 19. The complaint and other averments are also vague in as much as what was the vehicle which was overtaken by the appellant-claimant, is not specifically mentioned in the complaint or in the oral evidence of the appellant-claimant. 20. It is needless to emphasise that the width of the vehicle which has been overtaken by the appellant, matters a lot in deciding what was the extent that the appellant has moved on the wrong side of the road. 21. Admittedly in the place of accident width of the road is 24 feet. Spot mahazar which is enclosed to Ex.P3 clearly depicts that the accident has occurred 12 km away from Kaladagi Police Station, near Gaddanakeri cross on Bagalkot- Lokapur State Highway No.2. The road is situated East to Waste with 5 feet kachcha road on either side. 22. As could be seen from the mahazar, the accident has occurred in the middle of the road. Mahazar also indicate that it is the appellant-claimant who has moved away on the wrong side in the process of overtaking another vehicle. In the absence of details as to, which was the vehicle that the deceased over took at the time of accident, and having regard to the width of the road, the tribunal has specifically taken into consideration and adjudged that there was sufficient contributory negligence attributable to the claimant and thus, concluded the contributory negligence factor at 60% attributable to the claimant. 23. There is no other material available on record to record the contra finding by this court. 24. The claimant was the best person to explain before the tribunal in his evidence as to how the accident has occurred and which was the vehicle that he actually overtook. On perusal of the entire oral evidence of the claimant, who is examined as PW1, there is no whisper as to which was the vehicle the claimant overtook resulting into accident. On perusal of the entire oral evidence of the claimant, who is examined as PW1, there is no whisper as to which was the vehicle the claimant overtook resulting into accident. In other words, best evidence has been shut out from the court and as such, the tribunal with the available evidence on record has adjudged contributory negligence attributed to the claimant at 60%, in the consideration of this court it is just and reasonable. Thus, the said finding recorded by the tribunal, in our opinion requires no interference. 25. In view of the factual aspects of this particular case, we also do not find any merit in the case. In view of the foregoing reasons, the above point is answered in the negative. No other point is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant either to interfere with the impugned judgment of the tribunal. Accordingly, I pass he following : ORDER The appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.