1. Since these matters arise out of same accident and against common Judgment, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. These matters arise against the Judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamarajanagar, (Tribunal for short) in MVC 106, 107 and 108 of 2011.

3. Facts in brief are that the injured/claimant filed a petition before the Tribunal contending that on 01.05.2011, while he was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-02/Q- 1807 along with his wife deceased Jayamma and son deceased Mahadevamurthy met with road traffic accident owing to the actionable negligence of the driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-09/F-3989, as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries and his wife and son succumbed to the fatal injuries. The Corporation-appellant contested the matter. The Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on record awarded compensation as under:-

MVC No. 106/2011	Rs. 3,20,800/-
MVC No. 107/2011	Rs. 13,444/-
MVC No. 108/2011	Rs. 4,02,910/-

Interest at the rate of 6% p.a. was awarded on the compensation amount. Being aggrieved, the Corporation is in appeal challenging the liability.

4. Smt. H.R. Renuka, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant assailing the impugned Judgment and award, inter-alia contends that the motorcycle involved in the accident was driven by a minor boy, who had no driving licence to drive the vehicle; It is an admitted fact that three persons were travelling in the bike at the time of the accident, two pillion riders travelling on the bike is in violation of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act for short) and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules (CMV Rules for short). Placing reliance on Ex.R1, medico-legal record, wherein the history is entered as patient was a pillion rider in a two wheeler triple ride which was hit by KSRTC bus contends that this crucial evidence was lost sight off by the Tribunal. RW-1, the driver of the bus had deposed that the accident in question caused only due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle viz. the minor boy. The vehicle being driven by a minor boy, who had no driving licence would itself be suffice to hold that the accident was on account of negligence of the rider of the bike. The vital evidence placed I on record by the appellant-Corporation was overlooked by the Tribunal. In support of her contentions, the Learned Counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NWKRTC v. Gourabai and Others, Civil Appeal No. 3171/2009, dated 1.5.2009.

5. Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants supporting the impugned Judgment and award contends that Ex.R1 was issued by the Medical Record Officer, JSS Medical College, Mysore, the author of the said Ex.R1 was not examined by the appellant-Corporation. The wound certificate issued by the Basappa Memorial Hospital, marked as Ex.P13 clearly indicates the history which reads as "RTA (road traffic accident) while going by two wheeler triple ride hit by KSRTC bus." The injured himself was riding the vehicle, though it was a triple ride, the same would not disentitle the claimant from claiming the compensation under the provisions of the Act. Section 128 of the Act prohibits the driver of two wheeler from carrying more than one person in addition to himself, in violation of the same, punitive action is prescribed under the Act and Rules. Violation of the provisions of Section 128 of the Act and the Rule 123 of the CMV Rules and Rule 143 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 do not suggest that the contravention of the said provisions would be construed as negligent act to deny the compensation under the provisions of the Act. The injured was in a state of shock, losing his wife and son besides sustaining grievous injuries. In such a traumatic condition, the entries m