Ramachandran Nair, J.

The Director General of Police, Thiruvananthapuram and the Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram are impleaded as additional respondents in these appeals. Government Pleader takes notice for additional respondents.

2. The appellants are husband and wife who while travelling along with their two children aged 4 years and 2 years in a motor bike met with an accident on 14.2002 causing injury to three of them. The bike in which the appellants were travelling from Perumbavoor towards east in the Munnar road was knocked down by a car. While both the appellants and one child sustained injuries, the other child escaped unhurt. Since the injury to the child was minor in nature, the Insurance Company offered compensation and settled the liability. However, when the appellants filed separate claim petitions, the same was resisted by the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle, among other things, on the ground that the accident is on account of contributory negligence of the rider of the bike by taking more than one pillion rider in the bike. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal though determined compensation of Rs.2.06,500/- to the appellant in M.A.C.A. No.613 of 2006 and Rs.29,500/- to the appellant in M.A.C.A. No.612 of 2006, it exonerated the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle on the ground that the accident was on account of contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the bike, in taking more than one pillion rider in violation of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.V. Act"). The appeals are filed against the order of the Tribunal dismissing the claim petitions. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellants, Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company and counsel appearing for the registered owner of the car.

3. Counsel for the appellant contended that the order of the Tribunal is not tenable because the accident was caused on account of the negligence of the driver of the car which is evident from the criminal case charged against the driver of the car under Section 279 read with Sections 337 and 338 I.P.C. It is also conceded that the driver of the car pleaded guilty to the charges levelled against him, remitted fine and escaped. The Tribunal relied on the Division Bench judgments of the Madras High Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. Abdul Salam reported as Case No.157 in 2003 (3) K.L.T. page No.123 and that of the Karnataka High Court in Somaiah v. Bangalore Dairy, reported as Case No.12 in the very same volume of the K.L.T. at page 9 and held that the accident is on account of contributory negligence by the rider of the bike and so much so, compensation is not payable by the insurer or insured of the offending vehicle.

.4. Contributory negligence is a defence available to the respondents in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. However, it is for the respondents to prove contributory negligence if the claim petition has to be successfully resisted. Section 128 of the M.V.Act prohibits the rider of a motor bike from taking more than one pillion rider on it. For easy reference, we extract hereunder Section 128 of the M.V. Act.

."Safety measures for drivers and pillion riders:-(1) No driver of a two wheeled motor cycle shall carry more than one person in addition to himself on the motor cycle and no such person shall be carried otherwise than sitting on a proper seat securely fixed to the motor cycle behind the drivers seat with appropriate safety measures."

.5. A motor bike with seating capacity for two is obviously designed to carry only two passengers. In the first place, there is no space in the bike to be shared by any other person. If the rider sacrifices his comfortable seat at least in part to accommodate a third passenger, certainly, he will not be able to control the bike. Besides this, since the bike is designed to carry only two passengers, additional weight on account of third pass