The learned counsel appearing for the appellants on merits submitted that the accident was caused due to the sole negligence on the part of the claimant who was riding the scooter and was proceeding just behind the car in the same direction. The learned counsel, in the alternative submitted that the claimant who was riding the scooter just behind the car was in any case guilty of contributory negligence, which should have been duly apportioned in awarding the compensation. We have gone through the relevant portion of the testimony of the driver of the car and that of the claimant. In our opinion, even accepting entirely the version of the accident as narrated by the claimant, as a rider of the scooter who was proceeding just behind the car in the same direction some degree of care should have been exercised by him. He could have avoided the collision had he maintained a reasonable distance from the car going ahead of him. It was, therefore, a case of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, who was riding the scooter. Looking to the version of the parties and the manner in which the accident took place, we are of the opinion that the negligence has to be ap