1. The appeal of the insurer is preferred aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in fastening the liability as regards negligence and the appeal by the claimants is preferred aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, and are disposed by taking up for final disposal, after admitting the same with consent of both parties.

2. The facts as made out in the claim petition is that on 15.8.2013 at about 11.45 a.m., one Vijay (deceased) was proceeding as pillion rider of motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA51EF0901 and when the said motor cycle had reached near GVS College, Soppahlli-Anekal Chandrapura Main Road, a TATA goods vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-51-A-5736 being driven in a rash and negligent manner approaching in the opposite direction, dashed against the motor cycle and the deceased – Vijay son of Yellappa suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries and died. In spite of medical treatment, the same being not fruitful, he died immediately thereafter. The claim petition was resisted by the insurer contending that the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding on the part of the rider of the motor cycle, as admittedly, he was carrying two more pillion riders on the motor cycle and that the rider lost control of the vehicle and they had a fall.

3. After trial, the Tribunal considering the material on record, allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.10,30,000/- on various heads:

1.	Loss of dependency	Rs. 9 ,60,000/-
2.	Transportation of dead body and Funeral expenses	Rs. 25,000/-
3.	Loss of love and affection	Rs. 25,000/-
4.	Loss of estate	Rs. 20,000/-
Total		Rs.10,30,000/-

However, as regards contributory negligence on the part of the rider, taking into account the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle, Tribunal has apportioned negligence and had accordingly scaled down compensation to 50% of the amount awarded. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that there was triple riding which was not permissible and consequently, there is contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle and the deceased, which would have to be taken note of and the claimants would be entitled only to 50% of the compensation awarded. It is this judgment and award that is assailed before this Court by the insurer as well as by the claimants.

4. As regards the question of quantum, the claimants contend that the deceased was aged about 20 years as on the date of the accident i.e., 15.8.2013 and that he was earning Rs.15,000/per month. Evidence has been let in by the mother of the deceased and documents relating to the police investigation including copy of the FIR, complaint, charge sheet, panchnama, IMV report, post mortem report, inquest panchnama with statements and not-arised copies of Aadhar Cards has been produced.

5. While the insurer would contend that admittedly three persons were riding the motor cycle and in view of Section 128(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for brevity) there was an embargo on the rider of the two wheeler motor cycle to carry more than one person in addition to himself and a person preferring a claim petition who rides the motor cycle in violation of the safety statutory requirements ought not to be entitled to any relief and contends that the claim petition ought to have been rejected on this ground itself.

6. It is further contended that the judgment of this Court dated 6.12.2017 passed in M.F.A.No.7074/2016 [The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Naresh Banu and another] covers the present case in so far as the Court has observed that a person who does not adhere to safety measures as provided for under the statue, is not entitled to relief and holds that noncompliance of Sectio