S. VIMALA, J.

1. When a victim of accident loses his pregnant wife, the fetus and his leg as well, all in the same accident, can he be told that he is not entitled to compensation, all because, the offending tort-feasor could not be identified by the State machinery, this is the challenging question raised by the victim of the accident.

2. Contending that there is no foundational fact establishing the liability on the part of the Insurance Company and thus, the Insurance Company is not liable, these two appeals have been filed by the Insurance Company.

3. M.C.O.P.No.260 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner, P.Suresh, claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, in respect of death of his wife in the accident that took place on 03.09.2008. The Tribunal, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, passed an award for a sum of Rs. 6,02,680/-. Challenging the same, C.M.A.No.1832 of 2016 has been filed by the insurance company.

4. M.C.O.P.No.259 of 2010 has been filed by the same petitioner, claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-, in respect of the amputation suffered by him. Challenging the award granted at Rs. 7,07,510/-, C.M.A.No.1831 of 2016 has been filed by the insurance company.

5. Cross objection Nos.77 & 78 of 2016 have been filed by the victim claiming enhancement of compensation.

6. A perusal of the claim petition reveals that on 03.09.2008, at about 10.00 p.m., the husband/the claimant took his pregnant wife in a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN52Z0104, along with one Vasanthi for the help of his wife, as pillion riders. When the claimant was proceeding near Karuppanampatti, the lorry, coming in the direction from Omalur to Mettur, in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motor cycle. The lorry, after hitting the two wheeler driven by the claimant, did not stop and went away from the scene of occurrence. The claimant's wife, Maheshwari, was taken to the hospital with serious grievous injuries and was declared dead at about 02.00 hrs., on the early morning of 04.09.2008. A case was registered by the Omalur Police against the driver of the lorry in Cr.No.1064 of 2008.

7. The Insurance Company disputed its liability in M.C.O.P.No.260 of 2010 on the ground that the claimant/husband is guilty of triple driving which act is prohibited under the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the tortfeasor cannot claim compensation in respect of his own negligence.

8. It is the further contention of the Insurance Company that FIR has been registered only against the lorry driver and, therefore, the owner and the insurer of the lorry alone is responsible for the accident and the insurer of the two wheeler cannot be made liable for compensation and the petition should be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.

9. The Tribunal, on consideration of the materials available on record, rendered a finding that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of both the drivers, namely, the claimant as well as the driver of the lorry and apportioned the liability in the ratio of 50:50. Contending that the direction for apportionment was not taken care of, while arriving at the total amount of compensation by the Tribunal itself and therefore, it should be set aside.

10. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal has rendered a finding that the driver of the two wheeler (claimant) as well as the driver of the lorry are equally responsible for the accident. Though such a finding has been arrived at by the Tribunal, however, the liability has not been apportioned and the compensation to which each person is liable to pay has not been correctly indicated in the order, is the grievance of the appellant/Insurance Company.

11. The details of calculation in both the cases are as under:

M.C.O.P.No.260 of 2010

The Tribunal, based on the post-mortem report, fixed the age of the deceased at 23 years. The T