C.T. Ravikumar, J.

1. The captioned appeals arise respectively from the judgment and award dated 18.2.2013 in O.P. (MV) Nos. 105 of 2010 and 108 of 2010, a common award, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. Both the claim petitions are filed by two minors through their next friend, Sri. Anil Kumar, who is their father claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 14.11.2009 at about 12.30 p.m. On that day, the petitioner in O.P. (MV) No. 108/2010, who was then hardly 16 years, was riding a Hero Honda motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KL-07/W-5204 with the petitioner in O.P. (MV) No. 105 of 2010 on its pillion. She is his younger sister then aged 13 years. When they entered into Ernakulam-Muvattupuzha Road at Manathadam from a pocket road, a car bearing Reg. No. KL-07 AM 5089, driven by the first respondent, came from east and dashed against their motor cycle. Both of them sustained injuries and they were taken to Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. They underwent treatment there as inpatients for some days. It is in the said circumstances that the above mentioned claim petitions were filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by them.

2. A joint enquiry was conducted by the Tribunal in the claim petitions and as per the impugned common award, both the claim petitions were allowed. In O.P.M. (V) No. 105 of 2010, an amount of Rs. 2,02,100/- was granted as compensation and in O.P. (MV) No. 108/2010, an amount of Rs. 1,61,900/- was granted. Interest @ 8% from the date of the petition till realisation was allowed in both the cases. The captioned appeals have been filed by the insurer of the car involved in the accident mainly contending that the Tribunal had erred in not finding contributory negligence on the part of the claimants while entering into finding as to whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent, the first common issue. Though a ground was taken in the appeal that there was absolutely no negligence on the part of the driver of the car, the first respondent therein, the aforesaid contention alone was pressed into service.

3. We have heard the learned senior counsel Sri. Mathews Jacob appearing for the appellant and Advocate Sri. Janardhanan, appearing for the first respondent in both the appeals.

4. In the light of the arguments advanced before us, we are of the view that it would only be appropriate to consider firstly, the question of negligence. Essentially, the contention of the appellant-insurance company is that, at the time of the accident, the rider of the motor cycle was not having driving licence and therefore, on that sole score, he ought to have been held to have contributed to the accident. Obviously, then, the age of the rider of the motor cycle viz., the claimant in OP. (MV) No. 108/2010 was only 16 years. Presumably, the contention of contributory negligence was alleged against the claimant in O.P. (MV) No. 105/2010 based on the doctrine of volenti non-fit injuria. We will deal with the said contention a little later and we will proceed to consider the contention raised against the rider of the motor cycle. While considering the said question, it has to be borne in mind that he was then aged only 16 years. In the contextual situation, it is only apposite to refer to the finding of the Tribunal while repelling the aforesaid contention taken up by the appellant and it, in so far as relevant, reads thus:-

"Admittedly, the motor cycle rider was a minor and he did not have driving licence at the time of the accident. There is nothing on record to show that the motor cycle rider had no skill or experience to ride motor cycle."

5. We are at a loss to understand the raison d'etre for making such an observation as obviously, the Tribunal had already taken note of the fact that the rider of the motor cycle was then, aged only 16 years. The tenor of the said obs