Judgement A.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. :- The appellants have filed above these two appeals under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of award dated 19th May, 2007 passed by 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur awarding a sum of Rs. 45,900 to appellant Nanhelal and a sum of Rs. 46,200/- to appellant-Harilal along with interest @ 6.5% per annum. 2. Since the above said two appeals have arisen out of a common award, both these two appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 3. In brief, the case of claimants is that one Achchhelal was driving a Hero Puch on which appellants Nanhelal and Harilal were pillion riders. It is said that one Harishchand was driving a Mini Truck bearing registration No. M.P.-21/2477 and the said truck collided with the moped, as a result of which driver of the moped namely Achchhelal died on the spot and above said two appellants received injuries on their legs. Left femur bone of appellant-Nanhelal was fractured and right femur bone of appellant-Harilal was fractured in the said accident. Appellant-Nanhelal filed claim Case No. 196/2005 and appellant-Harilal filed Claim Case No. 197/2005. Since both the claim cases were filed arising out of same accident, learned Tribunal decided both the cases by passing a common award. 4. The contention of Ku. Aparna Singh, learned counsel for the appellants, is that learned Tribunal erred in law in passing the award of Rs. 45,900/- in favour of appellant-Nanhelal and Rs. 46,200/- in favour of appellant-Harilal. According to her, the award is on lower side. The contention of learned counsel is that learned Tribunal, contrary to law, has held that there was contributory negligence of the present appellants. In support of her submissions, she has placed reliance on the latest Division Bench decision of this Court Munnalal Halwai v. Lallan Tiwari, 2007 (3) MPHT 221 , in which it has been held that if on a scooter or moped two pillion riders are sitting and the same is collided with another vehicle, it will not be a case of contributory negligence but it would be a case of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles. It has also been put forth by learned counsel that since it is borne out from the record that both the appellants sustained 40% disability, therefore, the award of Rs. It has also been put forth by learned counsel that since it is borne out from the record that both the appellants sustained 40% disability, therefore, the award of Rs. 40,000/-under the head of permanent disability is on lower side. 5. On the other hand, Shri Harpreet Ruprah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company, has argued in support of the impugned award. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the above two appeals deserve to be allowed in part. 7. The finding of the learned Tribunal holding that the appellants were also negligent because they were sitting as pillion riders exceeding the limit of one person to sit as pillion rider, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that if a driver of a moped has allowed two pillion riders to sit and was driving the vehicle, at the most, it would be contravention of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and rules framed under the Act, but it can never be said and held that the driver of moped was rash and negligent merely because he allowed two persons to sit as a pillion riders, if the evidence is not otherwise. In the present case there is no evidence on record that the driver of the moped was driving the vehicle in a high speed and the vehicle was not in his control on account of allowing two persons to sit as pillion riders. Thus, according to us, it cannot be held that merely the driver of the moped has allowed two pillion riders (present appellants) to sit on the moped and was driving the same, therefore, he was rash and negligent. In this context, we may place reliance on the Division Bench decision of Gujarat High Court S. M. Vyas v. Sudhaben Sukethu Sutaria, 1980 ACJ 178 . 8. Even, for the sake of argument, if it is held that driver of the moped was not required to allow the present appellants to sit as pillion riders, it would be a case of composite negligence of the driver of the moped and the driver of the offending truck, but, the present appellants cannot be blamed and even in that situation it would not be a case of contributory negligence. In this context, we may profitably rely the Division Bench decision of this Court Munnalal Halwai (supra). In this context, we may profitably rely the Division Bench decision of this Court Munnalal Halwai (supra). 9. We have also gone through the finding of learned Tribunal and we find that learned Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion after correct appreciation of evidence that both the appellants sustained 40% disability as they sustained fracture in their femur bones. Appellant-Nanhelal received fracture in his left femur bone while appellant-Harilal received fracture in his right femur bone. Both the appellants had undergone operation and a rod has been inserted in their legs. Appellant-Nanhelal is a Raj Mistri and appellant Harilal is a cloth merchant. 10. We have also gone through the reasonings assigned by learned Tribunal awarding Rs. 76,500/- to appellant-Nanhelal and Rs. 77,000/- to appellant-Harilal. Learned Tribunal, since of its opinion that appellants were contributory negligent, awarded a total sum of Rs. 45,900/-to appellant-Nanhelal and Rs. 46,200/- to appellant-Harilal. According to us, looking to the injuries sustained to appellant-Nanhelal and the pains and sufferings which he faced, appropriate award under this head to appellant-Nanhelal would be Rs. 30,000/-. Since he had undergone an operation and a rod has been inserted in his femur bone and he has become 40% disabled, according to us, he is entitled to a sum of Rs. 65,000/- under this head. For medical expenses Rs. 2,500/- has been awarded. According to us, he is entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- under this head. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for special diet and conveyance, according to us, looking to the injuries sustained to appellant-Nanhelal, he is entitled to Rs. 10,000/-for special diet and conveyance charges. The award under the head of life expectancy is enhanced from Rs. 9,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, in total, appellant-Nanhelal is entitled to Rs. 1,20,000/- with interest @ 6.5% per annum. 11. For the above said reasons, appellant-Harilal also, looking to the injuries sustained to him, he is also entitled for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards pains and sufferings, Rs. 65,000/- towards partial disablement, Rs. 5,000/-towards medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet and conveyance and Rs. 10,000/- towards life expectancy and, thus, he is entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- with interest @ 6.5% per annum. The interest on enhancement amount shall be paid to the appellants from the date of filing of the claim petitions. 12. 65,000/- towards partial disablement, Rs. 5,000/-towards medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet and conveyance and Rs. 10,000/- towards life expectancy and, thus, he is entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- with interest @ 6.5% per annum. The interest on enhancement amount shall be paid to the appellants from the date of filing of the claim petitions. 12. Resultantly, these two appeals succeed and are hereby allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove with costs. Counsel Fee Rs. 2,000/- in each appeal, if pre-certified. Appeals allowed.