M. F. SALDANHA, J.

( 1 ) THE short point that has been canvassed in this first appeal is that the learned Member of the tribunal who has come to the conclusion that the appellant who himself was a driver was guilty of contributory negligence to the extent of 60% and would therefore be entitled to receive only 40% of the aggregate of Rs. 28,000/- is erroneous. The facts are undisputed in so far as the petitioner was crossing a busy road in Bangalore at a point other than on the pedestrian crossing and he came to be injured by a lorry belonging to the first respondent. The petitioner underwent treatment for about 10 days as he has sustained two minor fractures and the learned Member has very correctly computed the various computations under each of the heads. Though these were sought to be disputed, I see no reason to interfere with the manner in which the computation has been done because there was no additional material before the Tribunal to justify any higher computation. The aggregate came to Rs. 28,000/- and the learned Member held that the petitioner was virtually asking for trouble by seeking to cross a busy road and to this extent, he was liable to the extent of 60% by way

Click Here to Read the rest of this document