JUDGMENT : (Nupur Bhati, J.) : 1. This misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘Act’) has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of compensation amount quantified and awarded by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara (‘Tribunal’) by its award dated 22.04.2014 in MAC Case No.237/2013 (297/2005), whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,069/- in favour of claimant along with interest @ 6% p.a. The liability of paying the compensation was fastened upon all the non-claimants jointly and severally. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in the accident, which took place on 05.06.2003. In the claim petition, it was stated that on 05.06.2003, claimant was travelling in the Corporation’s Bus (RJ-06-P-1496) from Bhilwara to Kodukota, however, on account of rush of passengers in the Bus, the non-claimant No.3 asked the claimant to sit on the roof of the bus. Thereafter, while the bus was crossing Suwana turn, on account of negligent driving of the bus by its driver i.e. non-claimant No.2, the passengers including the appellant travelling on the roof of the bus, came in contact with electricity line, as a result of which the appellant received electric shock and sustained injuries. On account of such electrocution, there was fire in the bus as well. 3. After issuance of the notices of the claim petition, reply to claim petition was filed by non-claimant No.1 while opposing the submissions made in the claim petition. It was submitted that the claimant was never asked to travel while sitting on the roof of the bus and he, at his own, boarded on the roof of the bus. It was further submitted that the wires of pole installed by the Electricity Department were not at the prescribed height. The claimant himself was negligent. It was further submitted that the Electricity Department was not impleaded as party non-claimant, therefore, the claim petition was liable to be rejected. It was thus prayed that the claim petition be rejected. 4. On behalf of non-claimant, reply to claim petition was filed while denying the facts averred therein. The claimant himself was negligent. It was further submitted that the Electricity Department was not impleaded as party non-claimant, therefore, the claim petition was liable to be rejected. It was thus prayed that the claim petition be rejected. 4. On behalf of non-claimant, reply to claim petition was filed while denying the facts averred therein. It was further submitted that the claimant without obtaining ticket travelled in the Bus and so also without being permitted, he boarded on the roof of the Bus and there was no fault on the part of non-claimant No.2. 5. On behalf of non-claimant No.3 nobody appeared despite service and, therefore, exparte proceedings were ordered to be drawn against him by the Tribunal on 27.03.2010. 6. The learned Tribunal, on the strength of pleadings of the parties, settled four issues for determination. 7. For proving his case, the appellant examined himself as AW.1 and examined Dr. Aneesh Ahmed as AW.2 and also placed on record documents, which were exhibited as Ex. 1 to 25A. The Non-claimants examined NAW.1 Hanif Ahmed and NAW2 Surya Prakash. No documentary evidence was tendered by the non-claimants. 8. The learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No.1 and 3, after considering the evidence produced before it, has recorded a finding that the claimant, though was educated person, himself was negligent as he was travelling while sitting on the roof of the Bus and if he would not have travelled on the roof of the Bus, the incident would not take place. The learned Tribunal found that although the accident has occurred, but the claimant has also been found negligent for the cause of accident. Adverting to Issue No.3, the learned Tribunal on evaluation of evidence has apportioned contributory negligence of the claimant to the extent of 40% while making it 60% vis-a-vis the offending vehicle. The Issue No.2 relating to quantum of compensation has partially been partially allowed by the learned Tribunal in favour of claimant and while considering the evidence produced before it, the learned Tribunal quarantined the compensation for the injuries suffered by him to the tune of Rs.5115/-, however, since there was contributor negligence on the part of claimant himself, the claimant has been awarded compensation of Rs.3069/-. For the amount of compensation, all the non-claimants were held jointly and severally liable. 9. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.3 despite service. 10. For the amount of compensation, all the non-claimants were held jointly and severally liable. 9. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.3 despite service. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant has strenuously urged that finding of learned Tribunal on issue No.1 and 2, to the extent it has found the claimant contributory negligent for occurrence of accident, is wholly perverse and based on total misreading of evidence and other material on record. He further submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in assessing 40% contributory negligence on the claimant for the accident, which is ex-facie clear from the perusal of Naksha Mauka and other available material. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned Tribunal has recorded finding about contributory negligence based on mere ipse-dixit of learned Tribunal as well as conjectures and surmises, inasmuch as no material was available on record to show that the claimant has not taken reasonable care for safety. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate and the learned Tribunal has seriously erred in quantifying the compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant had suffered 20% permanent disability due the said accident. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has not granted any compensation with respect to future prospects. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that 40% deduction from the amount of compensation quantified payable to the claimant is perverse and dehors the prescribed cannons of justice. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable, which calls for no interference. He further submits that it has come on record that the claimant at his own travelled on the roof of the Bus, without even informing the driver and conductor of the Bus, and the aforesaid fact has been proved by the witnesses NAW.1 and NAW.2, therefore, it is clear case of contributory negligence as the claimant himself was negligent while he was travelling in the Bus, while sitting on the roof of the Bus. A prayer for dismissing the appeal has been made by the counsel for the respondents. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award and through scanned the material available on record. 13. A prayer for dismissing the appeal has been made by the counsel for the respondents. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award and through scanned the material available on record. 13. In order to thrash out the matter for ascertaining cause of accident, resulting in injury, the impugned award deserves judicial scrutiny on Issue No.1 & 3. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal decided Issue No.1 partially against the appellant by holding the claimant and the driver and conductor of the offending vehicle negligent for occurrence of accident. While deciding said issue, the learned Tribunal apportioned in proportion of 40% negligence of the claimant and 60% to the Bus driver and conductor. There remains no quarrel that in accident claim cases doctrine of contributory negligence is of great significance. The crucial question that has cropped up for consideration is whether deceased has failed to use reasonable care for safety of either himself so that he becomes blameworthy in part as an author of its own wrong. If the findings on Issue No.1 & 3 are examined on the touchstone of evidence and other material available on record, then it would ipso facto reveal that the claimant himself was negligent, inasmuch as he was travelling while sitting on the roof of the Bus that too without informing the driver and conductor of the Bus. This Court thus finds that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error while deciding the issues No.1 and 3 thereby holding the claimant himself guilty for occurrence of the accident. 14. This Court finds that the Disability Certificate produced by the claimant as Ex.24 was of the dated dated 13.09.2012, which was got prepared and obtained after nine years of the accident. The learned Tribunal considered the injury report, wherein one simple injury was recorded and no grievous injury was reported. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the learned Tribunal has rightly brushed aside the permanent disability certificate. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1000/- for the simple injury and Rs.2500/- have been awarded in favour of claimant towards hospitalization and Rs.615/- have been awarded towards medical expenses. Further, a sum of Rs.1000/- have been awarded in favour of claimant towards pain and suffering. 15. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1000/- for the simple injury and Rs.2500/- have been awarded in favour of claimant towards hospitalization and Rs.615/- have been awarded towards medical expenses. Further, a sum of Rs.1000/- have been awarded in favour of claimant towards pain and suffering. 15. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error while assessing the contributory negligence on part of claimant himself to the extent of 40%. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is adequate and no case of enhancement is made out. The appeal has no force. The misc. appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.