C.T. Ravikumar, J.

1. The main question posed for consideration, which would decide the very maintainability of these appeals, is whether the appellants fall, within the expression `person aggrieved' employed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short `M.V.Act') in view of the circumstances hereafter to be narrated. Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), Section 173(1) of the M.V. Act provides for an appeal to the High Court by `a person aggrieved' by an award passed by a Claims Tribunal. Consideration of the aforesaid question has become inevitable since the appeals are filed by the appellants/ claimants seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation against awards whereby and whereunder compensation in excess of their claim was granted. O.P.(M.V)Nos.853 of 2012 and 2326 of 2012 from which the above appeals arise, germane from one singular motor vehicle accident and they were jointly enquired into and a common award dated 30.5.2016 was passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. Hence, the appeals are jointly considered.

2. Shorn off details the facts necessary for deciding the said question are as follows:-

Actually, three vehicles involved in the accident in question that occurred on 13.12.2011. The deceased in the latter appeal viz., Waseem Sajad was riding the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-11/AC 7658 from east to west through Aluva - A.M.Road. The appellant in the former appeal was a pillion rider on another motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-42/E 3014 ridden by his friend Adhithyaraj towards the same direction through the same road. When they reached Thottumugham the offending car bearing Reg.No.KL-41/B 7576 driven by the common first respondent towards the same direction overtook the motorcycle ridden by the victim in the latter appeal through its left side and then suddenly turned towards right, without giving proper signal. As a result, the said vehicle hit against both the motor cycles. Waseem Sajad sustained injuries and later succumbed to the injuries on 20.3.2012. The appellant in the former appeal sustained grievous injuries and they ultimately resulted in permanent disability. In the circumstances, the injured Mithun Subramanian filed O.P.(M.V)No.853 of 2012 limiting the claim of compensation to 5 lakhs. The deceased Waseem Sajad was a bachelor and his legal heirs viz., his mother and sister filed O.P.(M.V)No.2326 of 2012 limiting the claim to 15 lakhs. In O.P.(M.V)No.853 of 2012, the Tribunal granted an amount of 6,83,060/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Eighty Three Thousand and Sixty only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation as against a claim of 5 Lakhs. It is pertinent to note that as against a claim of 2 lakhs as compensation for permanent disability the Tribunal granted a compensation of 4,01,760/- (Rupees Four Lakhs One Thousand Seven Hundred and Sixty only). In O.P.(M.V) No.2326 of 2012 16,20,500/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Twenty Thousand and Five Hundred only) was awarded as against a claim limited to 15 lakhs. The common first respondent, the insurer of the offending vehicle - car, was held liable to indemnify its insured owner. Despite such an award no appeal has been preferred by the insurer.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the common first respondent.

4. The nub of the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the fact that the appellants confined their claim to 5 lakhs and 15 lakhs and the Tribunal granted compensation more than the amount thus claimed, cannot be a fetter to their rights to prefer an appeal under Section 173(1) of the M.V. Act seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation. The learned counsel submitted that in fact, in the claim petitions, the appellants made own assessment of compensation of more than 5 lakhs and 15 lakhs r