P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

1. This appeal preferred by the claimants is in respect of the inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in connection with the sad demise of the son of the appellants 1 and 2 and the sibling of the appellants 3 and 4 in a road traffic accident occurred on 11.5.2007. The deceased, who was pursuing his studies for the 2nd year MBA in the Guruvayoorappan Institute of Management in Coimbatore, was proceeding along the road on a motor cycle bearing No. KL-05/K-7553. While so, when he reached the place of occurrence, a jeep bearing No. KL-7/D-2070 owned, driven and insured by the respondents 1, 2 and 3 respectively before the Tribunal knocked him down causing fatal injuries leading to his death occurred on the same date. This was sought to be compensated by filing the claim petition before the Tribunal.

2. The matter was not contested by any of the respondents except the insurance company. No violation of policy/statutory condition was pointed out and the matter was contested only on general grounds. The evidence adduced before the Tribunal consists of the deposition of PWs.1 and 2 and documents marked as Exts.A1 to A21 produced from the part of the claimant; whereas Ext. B1 copy of the scene mahazar was produced from the part of the respondent Company. Based on the materials on record, a total compensation of Rs. 4,76,250/- was awarded by the Tribunal, which was directed to be satisfied with interest @ 9% per annum from 10.9.2007 till realisation, plus cost. This is sought to be enhanced by way of this appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company.

4. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the appellants points out that, even though the Tribunal has reckoned the notional monthly income as Rs. 10,000/- and has given due consideration to the future prospects, reckoning the same as Rs. 15,000/-, only a sum of Rs. 12,500/- was taken as the monthly income to work out the compensation for loss of dependency and 2/3rd has been deducted as the probable contribution to the family. Similarly, in spite of the fact that the deceased was aged 23 years, multiplier of 12' alone has been adopted, which is not correct or sustainable in view of the law declared by the Apex Court on many an occasion, submits the learned counsel. It is also pointed out that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are quite on the lower side, which requires to be boosted up. The learned counsel further submits that absolutely for no reason, deduction to an extent of 25% has been made by the Tribunal stating that the deceased was not wearing a 'Helmet' and hence interference is sought for under this head as well.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the consequence of non-wearing of the Helmet and the course that could be followed by the Tribunal in apportioning negligence had come up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court and as per the judgment reported in Siby Paul v. Praveen Kumar (2009 (1) KLT 322) it has been held that it could be raised as a defence from the part of the insurance company to apportion the liability to an appropriate extent. The Tribunal, in the award, has referred to the instance of non-wearing of the 'Helmet' leading to the death of the deceased and in turn, has fixed 25% contributory negligence on the part of the rider. No other aspect was discussed by the Tribunal in the award. We find it difficult to agree with the proposition that non-wearing of 'Helmet', though an offence under the relevant provisions of the M.V. Act, could be taken as a ground to fix contributory negligence on the part of the rider. What is to be considered with regard to the apportionment of negligence is whether the party concerned had any role/part in causing or co