Judgment N.K.Mody, J. ( 1. ) This order shall also govern the disposal of MA. No.811/ 06 as both the appeals are arising out of one award and one accident. In both the appeals parties are one and the same except the claimant, who are appellants. ( 2. ) Short facts of the case are that appellants who are Bihari and Deepubai and father and daughter in relation filed claim petitions alleging that on 25/06/04 they were traveling on a motor byke which was driven by son of Biharilal namely Balram. It was alleged that a truck bearing registration No. HR 38/M3841 was coming from other direction, which was rashly been driven by respondent no. 2, owned by respondent no. 1 and insured with respondent no. 3. It was alleged that because of rash and negligent driving of respondent no. 2 an accident took place in which Bihari sustained fracture of Tibia and Fibula in right leg. It was alleged that appellant Biharilal was hospitalized at District Hospital, Shajapur from 25/06/ 04 to 26/06/04 from where appellant was referred to Saluja Narsingh Home, Ujjain, where appellant remain as indoor patient from 26/06/04 to 06/07/04, where appellant was operated and rod was inserted. There was permanent disability up to 14.6%. In other matter in which the injured is appellant Deepubai learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant sustained fracture of femur bone. Appellant was hospitalized at District Hospital, Shajapur from 25/06/04 to 26/06/04 from where appellant was referred to Saluja Nursing Home, Ujjain where appellant was hospitalized from 26/06/04 to 06/07/04. Appellant was operated and plating and bone grafting took place. Permanent disability was assessed @ 18.4%. ( 3. ) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned tribunal after framing of issues and recording of evidence awarded a sum of Rs.35,000/- in both the case and deducted 50% of the amount on account of contributory negligence on part of the driver of the motor vehicle. Learned counsel submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellants amount awarded in both the cases is on lower side. It is submitted that since the driver of the motor byke was not a party to the petition, therefore, there was no occasion to decide the contributory negligence against a person who was not a party to the petition. It is submitted that since the driver of the motor byke was not a party to the petition, therefore, there was no occasion to decide the contributory negligence against a person who was not a party to the petition. Learned counsel submits that no case was registered against the driver of the motor byke. It is submitted that only on the ground that three persons were traveling on a motor byke. It was held that appellants are entitled for 50% of the awarded amount. Learned counsel submits that learned tribunal placed reliance on a decision of Madras High Court in the matter of Managing Director, Tamilnadu Road Transport Corporation Vs. Abdul, Reported in 2004 ACJ 1827, wherein Madras High Court has held as under:- We are concerned as to whether such action of the individuals is permissible under law. The motor cycle and any other two wheelers are meant only for two persons, the rider and, a pillion rider. If more than two persons are traveling on a motor cycle or any other two wheeler, undoubtedly such action of the individual would become illegal and unauthorised. It is an awful sight when we come across three persons traveling on a motor cycle. They are sitting in such a cramped manner that the rider of the motor cycle almost sitting on the petrol tank or at the front edge of the seat. When he is sitting in such a position, naturally because of the restricted movement of his legs, he cannot have complete control over the brake. The movement of his hands are also restricted. When that be so, this court is of the opinion that definitely the rider of the two wheeler cannot have full control over the vehicle. Apart from that, when three persons are traveling on a motor cycle, two as pillion riders, any unusual movement of the pillion riders would make the rider of the motor cycle to loose his control over the vehicle. Even though such traveling of three persons on a motor cycle is contrary to the statute, still the enforcement wing do not care to take note of the same and failed to take action against their illegal action. Virtually because of the failure on the part of the enforcement wing, such traveling of three persons on the two wheelers have become a regular sight. Virtually because of the failure on the part of the enforcement wing, such traveling of three persons on the two wheelers have become a regular sight. Even though the highway petrolling is available but it is a rare sight to see a highway patrolling vehicle. The traveling of three persons has become rampant in the mofussils and in the city; especially among the youngsters like the college students. When that be the case, the enforcing authority is expected to enforce the statute with some strictness to avoid any untoward incident. There is no purpose in conducting the Road Safety Week without infusing the road sense in compliance of the rules and regulations of the statute in the minds of those who are using the vehicles. When three persons traveling on motor cycle which is meant for two persons, this court is of the view, the conduct of persons who travel in such a manner is liable for contributory negligence; especially when their action is contrary to the statute. ( 4. ) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that divisional bench of this court has taken a different view in the matter of Manjo Bee and ors. Vs. Sajjad Khan and ors., Reported in 2007 ACJ 737 , wherein it has been held that carrying more passengers than one on motor cycle is violation under section 128 of M.V. Act but by carrying more persons, one can not be said to be negligent as a person having more than one pillion rider can also be more careful than a person going along on a motor cycle and accordingly repealed the plea of contributory negligence on behalf of the driver of the motor cycle. ( 5. ) Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that different view was taken by another Divisional Bench of this court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Uma Tiwari and others, Reported in 2007 (I) Manisa 204, wherein it was held that driving the scooter along with three other persons by violating the provisions of Section 128 of the act was negligent and had accordingly determined the liability on the owners of the jeep and the scooter in the proportion of 70:30. ( 6. Smt. Uma Tiwari and others, Reported in 2007 (I) Manisa 204, wherein it was held that driving the scooter along with three other persons by violating the provisions of Section 128 of the act was negligent and had accordingly determined the liability on the owners of the jeep and the scooter in the proportion of 70:30. ( 6. ) Learned counsel further submits that since there was two different views taken by the Divisional Bench, therefore, the matter was referred to the Full Bench of this court in the matter of Devising Vs. Vikramsingh, in MA No.670/07. and vide order dated 17/10/07 Full Bench of this Court observed as under :- "A plan reading of Section 128 of the Act quoted above, would show that sub-section (1) casts a duty on the driver of a two wheeled motor cycle not to carry more than one person in addition to himself on the motor cycle. Similarly, Rule 123 of the Rules quoted above mentions the safety devices to be provided while manufacturing a motor cycle. These provisions obviously are safety measures, for the driver and pillion rider and breach of such safety measures may amount to "negligence" but such negligence will not amount to "contributory negligence" on the part of the pillion rider or "composite negligence" on the part of the driver of the motor cycle, unless such negligence was partly the immediate cause of the accident or damage suffered by the pillion rider as would be clear from the authorities discussed above. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that if the damage in the accident has not been partly on account of violation of Section 128 of the Act by the pillion rider of the motor cycle, the pillion rider is not guilty of contributory negligence. Similarly, if the damage suffered by the pillion rider has not been caused partly on account of violation of Section 128 of the Act by the driver, the pillion rider cannot put up a plea of composite negligence by the rider. In other words, if breach of Section 128 of the Act, does not have a causal connection with the damage caused to the pillion rider, such breach would not amount to contributory negligence on the part of the pillion rider of the motor cycle or composite negligence on the part of the driver of the motor cycle. In other words, if breach of Section 128 of the Act, does not have a causal connection with the damage caused to the pillion rider, such breach would not amount to contributory negligence on the part of the pillion rider of the motor cycle or composite negligence on the part of the driver of the motor cycle. In this case it was held that: (1) Violation of Section 128 of the Act, per se, by a motor cyclist does not arise a presumption of contributory negligence on his part. (2) Similarly, violation of Section 128 of the Act per se does not amount to contributory negligence on the part of the pillion riders. (3) A pillion rider cannot put up a plea of composite negligence by the driver of the motor cycle, if the driver only violates Section 128 of the Act. ( 7. ) Mr. S. S. Chawla, Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submits that Balram was aged 19 years and was son of the appellant/injured Biharilal and has not been examined by the appellant. It is submitted that since Biharilal himself was owner of the motor byke, which was being driven by Balram, therefore, owner and insurance company was not impleaded as party. It is submitted that since Balram was aged 19 years at the time of accident and was not possessing valid driving license, therefore, learned tribunal has rightly held that it was a case of contributory negligence and appellant in both the cases are entitled for 50% of the amount. ( 8. ) From perusal of the record it appears that the criminal case was registered against respondent no. 1. Spot map is on record, which is Ex.P/9, according to it when the offending motor byke, which was driven by Balram was completely on the left side of the road was dashed by offending truck, which was going towards Shajapur. From perusal of the spot map one can safely reach to the conclusion that it was offending vehicle which was at fault. Best witness of this fact was driver of the truck, who has neither appeared nor examined. No steps has been taken by the respondent no. 3 to examine the driver to state that in what circumstances the accident occurred. Best witness of this fact was driver of the truck, who has neither appeared nor examined. No steps has been taken by the respondent no. 3 to examine the driver to state that in what circumstances the accident occurred. It is true that three persons were traveling on the motor byke and the Balram is not a stranger but a son of the appellant Biharilal, who is only aged 19 years. Since no license has been filed, therefore, it may be presumed that Balram was not having valid driving license at the relevant time when accident occurred. ( 9. ) Keeping in view the law laid down in the matter of Devisingh (supra) only because three persons traveling on the motor byke, it can not be presumed that the driver of the motor byke was equally liable for the accident as there is no evidence on record in this regard. Since Biharilal claimant/appellant himself was the owner of the motor byke, therefore, it was not expected from him to implead himself as non-applicant/respondent in the petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case looking to the spot map and also the registration of the criminal case against respondent no. 2 and also from the fact that respondent no. 2 did not appear before the learned tribunal and also before this court, this court is of the view that learned tribunal committed error in holding that it was a case of contributory negligence. ( 10. ) From perusal of the record it appears that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellants in both the appeal amount awarded by the learned tribunal on number of heads is on lower side. In view of this a case of enhancement is made out. In my opinion, it will be proper to enhance the compensation by Rs.20,000/- in both the cases. In other words, in view of this, the claimants are held entitled for a total sum of Rs.55,000/- by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by appellants in the accident. The enhanced amount of Rs.20,000/- shall carry interest @7,5%p.a. ( 11. ) With the aforesaid observations appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be placed in the record of MA. No. 811/06. Appeal disposed of.