C.T. Ravikumar, J.

This appeal is directed against the award dated 16.11.2012 in O.P.(M.V)No. 767 of 2005 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal. The appellant was the claimant therein. He filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.5.2005 while he was riding a motor cycle. On that day, he was riding a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-01/R-1940. When the said vehicle reached near Gurukulam junction, the offending vehicle which is a private stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-16/5859 came from the opposite direction and dashed against his motor cycle and consequently, he sustained injuries. He was taken to Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and Ext.A6 discharge card would reveal that he had been an inpatient there from 21.5.2005 to 1.7.2005. Ext.A3 treatment certificate would reveal that he sustained the following bodily injuries owing to the accident:-

"(1) Comminuted fracture proximal third of Right femur.

(2) Type III compound fracture both bones right forearm."

The injuries sustained by him resulted in permanent disability. It is in the said circumstances that the appellant filed O.P.(M.V) No. 767 of 2005 seeking a compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/-. In support of his claim, the appellant got marked Exts.A1 to A14. Both sides did not adduce any oral evidence before the Tribunal and in fact, on the side of the respondents no documentary evidence was also adduced. The Tribunal analysed the evidence on record and appreciated the rival contentions and passed the impugned award assessing the compensation payable as Rs. 7,11,500/-. However, in the light of the specific finding of the Tribunal that the appellant had also contributed to the accident and consequential apportionment of contributory negligence between the appellant and the driver of the offending vehicle equally he was found entitled only to get only 50% of the compensation awarded. Consequently, the Tribunal passed an award for Rs. 3,55,750/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of expiry of a period of 60 days from the date of award (16.11.2012). The 3rd respondent-insurance company was directed to deposit the amount awarded together with interest within the above mentioned period and in case of failure to deposit the amount within the above stipulated period the rate of interest would stand enhanced to 12%. It is mainly feeling aggrieved by the contributory negligence attributed on him and the consequential reduction of 50% of the amount of compensation that the captioned appeal has been preferred.

2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

3. In the light of the arguments advanced before us and taking note of the contentions raised in the appeal it is obvious that the question to be considered in this appeal is whether the challenge against the twin reasons assigned by the Tribunal for holding contributory negligence against the appellant are sustainable ? A careful scanning of the impugned award would reveal that for arriving at the conclusion that the appellant had contributed to the accident and for apportioning the contributory negligence equally between the appellant and the 2nd respondent, the driver of the other vehicle involved in the accident the Tribunal firstly assigned the reason that the appellant had not produced the driving licence to establish that at the time of the accident he was possessing a valid driving licence. The second reason assigned by the Tribunal is to the effect that since the road was having a clear straight vision of 100 metres, on seeing that the other vehicle coming to his direction though through the wrong side, the appellant ought to have taken his vehicle further to the left side of the road, i.e, towards the road margin having more than 2 metres and averted the accident. In short, the Tribunal found that since the appellant did not take his veh