The claimants in two claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal are challenging in these appeals the common award passed in the claim petitions.

2. The appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1856 of 2011 was the rider and the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1947 of 2011 was the pillion rider of a motor cycle respectively. The accident occurred on account of the collision of the said motorcycle with the autorikshaw owned and driven by the first respondent. The second respondent is the insurer of the autorickshaw. The first respondent remained ex-parte. The second respondent contested the claim petition, contending, among others, that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1856 of 2011. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the second respondent in part and found that the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1856 of 2011 was negligent to the extent of 40% in causing the accident. Though the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1947 of 2011 was not found responsible for the accident, the Tribunal had reduced the compensation payable to him also proportionately on that basis. As far as the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1856 of 2011 is concerned, the Tribunal passed an awar