JUDGMENT : K. KANNAN, J. 1. The appeal is brought through a single adjudication made for three petitioners, who have suffered injuries in a motor accident. The Tribunal must have called upon the petitioners to file independent petitions, so that the compensation was assessed independently to make it available for execution for each person in case of non-compliance. 2. It is a case of three persons on a motor cycle having been hit by a Maruti car coming from behind. 3. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation found that the driver of Maruti car was guilty of negligent driving and all the same found contributory negligence for the three persons, who were coming on a motor cycle. This finding is clearly erroneous. The court was not determining an imposition of a fine or offence under the Motor Vehicles Act. The three persons travelling on a motor cycle may have been guilty of traffic offence but there is no reason for the court to make any inference regarding negligence as contributory by the only fact that three persons were going on a motor cycle. This can be explained also by a different experience of a motorcyclist not having a driving licence at all but still coming by an injury in collision with another vehicle. The courts have held in such a situation that the person who did not have a driving licence shall not be taken as allowing for common inference of negligence. It is another way of saying that yet another vehicle will not be permitted to take advantage of a traffic offence committed by another person. If the evidence was brought before the court that the driver of Maruti car was responsible for the accident, court could not have found without any explanation from the driver of Maruti car itself that the accident took place by any negligent conduct of the motorcyclist also. A finding of contributory negligence is not a matter of conjectural inference in the manner done by the Tribunal but it shall be on the basis of specific evidence. The partial abatement of the respective claims to the extent of 50 per cent was, therefore, erroneous and I set aside the same. 4. While determining the compensation for injury to the petitioner No. 1, the court has provided for Rs. 21,110 as medical expenses and awarded Rs. 750 for fracture. The partial abatement of the respective claims to the extent of 50 per cent was, therefore, erroneous and I set aside the same. 4. While determining the compensation for injury to the petitioner No. 1, the court has provided for Rs. 21,110 as medical expenses and awarded Rs. 750 for fracture. The petitioner No. 1 was hospitalised for a period of 17 days. He ought to have been, therefore, provided for appropriate compensation towards pain and suffering, attendant charges, transportation and special diet. I will assess the compensation as Rs. 7,500 towards pain and suffering for fracture and Rs. 2,000 apiece for each of the other heads. There shall be, therefore, an additional amount of Rs. 14,250 over the amount already awarded to the petitioner No. 1. As regards the claim of the petitioner No. 2, the court has provided Rs. 1,796 being the hospital charges and for medicines. He had been admitted for 4 days. The petitioner No. 3 had incurred Rs. 922 towards his hospitalisation for 4 days. Both of them will have an additional amount of Rs. 3,000 for pain and suffering as well as for dietary charges for staying in the hospital. The entire amount of compensation shall be paid without any abatement over the amounts determined with the additions as provided above for each one of the appellants, along with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 5. The award stands modified and the appeal is allowed to the above extent. 6. The Registry shall despatch the copy of the order to the particular Judicial Officer, who delivered the judgment. 7. Appeal allowed.