ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is a truck driver. He was 57 years' old in 2012. He was coming from Agra side while driving his truck on 25.04.2012. He is also the owner of the truck. At about 4.00 A.M., when the appellant reached in front of the Back Mate Factory Gate, situated near Kosi, U.P., his truck collided against the offending vehicle, namely, another truck which was left by its driver - respondent No.2 - in the middle of the road. It is averred that the truck was left unattended on a public road and without turning on its parking lights. The appellant, thus, could not notice the presence of the offending vehicle in the middle of the road and resultantly, his truck collided with the offending vehicle. His legs were badly crushed in the cabin of his vehicle during the collision. 3. Due to the accident, the appellant unfortunately suffered amputation through lower 1/3rd of the right leg with united fracture - right femoral shaft and united fracture shaft tibia left. The appellant suffered 60% permanent disability. 4. The appellant filed a Claim Petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Lakhs). The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), vide Award dated 27.05.2015, assessed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 29,58,644/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four). However, owing to contributory negligence, the Tribunal applied the 40:60 ratio and, thus, held the appellant entitled to a sum of Rs. 17,75,186/-(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Six) along with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. 5. Respondent No.1 - Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. - as well as the appellant, both, filed cross-appeals before the High Court seeking reduction/enhancement of compensation, respectively. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment dated 20.05.2019, has allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company and dismissed that of the appellant, thereby reducing the compensation amount to Rs. 3,97,533/- (in place of Rs.17,75,186/-). 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and carefully perused the material placed on record, especially the Award passed by the Tribunal. 7. We find that the Tribunal, after evaluating the entire evidence on record, came to a firm conclusion that the annual income of the appellant was Rs. 3,97,533/- (in place of Rs.17,75,186/-). 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and carefully perused the material placed on record, especially the Award passed by the Tribunal. 7. We find that the Tribunal, after evaluating the entire evidence on record, came to a firm conclusion that the annual income of the appellant was Rs. 1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand); he was 57 years' old at the time of accident, and that his loss of income was Rs.13,333/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Three). The Tribunal also noticed that as a result of the amputation of legs, the appellant suffered permanent disability and was no longer in a position to drive the truck. The Tribunal assessed the annual income of the appellant as Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand) whereupon a multiplier of 9 was applied. The Tribunal took the functional disability at 100% and after adding transport charges, attendant charges, special diet, loss of enjoyment and immunity, physical pain and mental agony, besides loss of income and the expenditure incurred by the appellant on treatment etc., the Tribunal assessed the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.29,58,644/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Fifty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Forty Four). Thereafter, the Tribunal held that the appellant was also partially responsible for causing the accident and, thus, applying the principle of contributory negligence in the ratio 40:60, it reduced the total compensation to Rs. 17,75,186/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Seventy Five Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Six). 8. Contrary to it, we find that the High Court has not appreciated the evidence on record and without assigning any valid reasons has substantially reduced the compensation under different heads. We may hasten to add that the High Court has assigned the functional disability at the rate of 80% instead of 100% as assessed by the Tribunal. We are unable to concur with the finding of the High Court in this respect for the reason that due to amputation of legs, the appellant will never be in a position to drive the truck and, thus, the functional disability suffered by him was 100% and not 80%. On a comparative analysis, we are inclined to restore the Award passed by the Tribunal after setting aside the judgment of the High Court. Ordered accordingly. 9. On a comparative analysis, we are inclined to restore the Award passed by the Tribunal after setting aside the judgment of the High Court. Ordered accordingly. 9. Counsel for the appellant then submits that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, attribution of contributory negligence to the extent of 40% to the appellant by the Tribunal or the High Court is unjustified. He submits that the offending vehicle was left in the middle of the road without any parking lights. It was at 4.00 A.M. when the appellant was driving his truck. The offending vehicle was overloaded with fodder unlawfully and was parked unattended on the road. The appellant, despite being fully vigilant on a busy national highway, was not in a position to avoid the collision even while driving his truck at a moderate speed. 10. We have considered the submissions in this regard. Taking into consideration all the attending circumstances, it seems that the interest of justice would be adequately met with by reducing the contributing negligence attributable to the appellant to 30% only, instead of 40%. Ordered accordingly. 11. As a sequel to the above discussion, the appellant, in addition to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, shall be further entitled to enhanced compensation on applying the contributory negligence in the ratio of 30:70. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal is, accordingly, directed to re-calculate the compensation amount payable to the appellant in terms of the above direction. The Tribunal shall do the needful within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount of compensation with the Tribunal within two months thereafter. 12. The Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the offending vehicle in terms of the liberty already granted by the Tribunal and the High Court. Ordered accordingly. 13. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. 14. As a result, the pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.