Jyothindranath, J.

All these appeals are filed by the injured in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 21.07.2007 at Manjeri. They moved claim petitions before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, which were disposed of by the Tribunal by a common judgment dated 2.4.2012.

2. M.A.C.A. No.1400/2012 is filed against the award in O.P. (MV)No.156/2009, M.A.C.A. No.1404/2012 is filed against the award in O.P.(MV)No.1259/2008 and M.A.C.A. No.1405/2002 is filed against the award in O.P.(MV)No.1260/2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri. The challenge is against the finding of the Tribunal regarding the cause of accident as well as the quantum of compensation. The relevant facts for consideration of these appeals are as follows :

The appellant in M.A.C.A. No.1400/2012 was riding a motor cycle taking his two minor children as pillion riders. At that point of time, a car came from the opposite side and hit against the motor cycle. O.P.(MV)No.156/2009 was filed by the rider (father) in his individual capacity claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident alleging negligence on the side of the driver of the car which came and hit against the motor cycle. O.P.(MV) No.1259/2008 and O.P.(MV)No.1260/2008 were filed by the minor children through said appellant in the capacity of next friend and guardian of the minor children. The common case of the appellants is that the negligence of the driver of the car caused the accident.

3. The appellant in M.A.C.A. No.1400/2012 was examined before the Tribunal as PW1 and further the FIR and the charge sheet filed by the Police against the driver of the car were marked. After appreciating the materials before the Tribunal, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles involved and apportioned the negligence as 25% that of the petitioner in O.P.(MV)No.156/2009 and 75% that of the driver of the car and thereon compensation was assessed and proportionate deductions were made from the assessed compensation in respect of all the claims.

4. When the appeals came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted before us that here is a case where an accident occurred involving a motor cycle and a car. The appellants/claimants produced the Police Charge which will indicate that after thorough investigation, Police found negligence of the driver of the car as the cause of accident and charge sheeted the driver of the offending vehicle, who was arrayed as respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. It is the case that when there is a police charge, the primary burden of the appellants is discharged by the production and marking of the same and the Tribunal should have found that the negligence was on the side of the driver of the car and full compensation should have been awarded. It is also submitted that taking his minor children as pillion riders ought not to have considered as a case of over loading. The learned counsel brought to our notice the decision of this court in Binoj Antony v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (2014 1 KLT 393), wherein it is categorically stated that it is the duty of the person who alleges that overloading is the cause of accident to prove that fact positively. It is the submission of the learned counsel that in all these cases, the appellants sustained fractures. All the claimants were examined by the Medical Board and in the case of the father i.e. the appellant in M.A.C.A. No.1400/2012, the Medical Board assessed a disability of 10%. In two other cases, the disability was assessed as 2% by the Medical Board and the documents are marked as Ext.X1, X2 and X3 respectively. It is the submission of the learned counsel that as per the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. (2013 3 KLJ 815), at least Rs. 1,00,000/- should have been given to the appellants in M.A.C.A.Nos.1404