JUDGMENT : Soumitra Pal, Mir Dara Sheko, JJ. Let informal paper books filed by Mr. Rahaman, learned advocate for the appellants, be kept on record. 2. It is submitted that a copy of the paper book has already been served on the learned advocate for the Insurance Company, which has been accepted. 3. By consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the appeal is treated as on day's list and is taken up for hearing. 4. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 24th July, 2013 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, Malda in M.A.C. Case no. 161 of 2012 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 5. Relying on the grounds of appeal, it is submitted by Mr. Rahaman that the learned Judge, while passing the judgment and award, erred in dismissing the claim petition by holding that the deceased Subhas Mondal, being the rider of the motor cycle, had "solely contributed" to the accident. The finding that the claimants, who are seeking compensation against the offending Mini Truck being the heirs of the deceased, cannot seek equity before the learned Tribunal as they have not come with clean hands since the driver of the motor cycle had violated the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, is not tenable. 6. Ms. Gopa Das (Mukherjee), learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that since statute does not permit two pillion riders on a motor cycle, the appellants-claimants are not entitled to get any compensation. 7. Heard learned advocates for the parties. There is no dispute that at the time of accident, apart from the motor cyclist, there were two pillion riders. Section 128 provides that no driver of two wheeled motor cycle shall carry more than one person in addition to himself on the motor cycle. That apart, from the materials on record, including the seizure list, we could not find that the motor cyclist and pillion riders were wearing protective headgear which is mandatory under section 129 of the Act. From the cause titles of the sections 128 and 129 we find that the said provisions are for the safety of the motor cycle drivers and pillion riders. 8. From the cause titles of the sections 128 and 129 we find that the said provisions are for the safety of the motor cycle drivers and pillion riders. 8. Since the motor cyclist had violated the provisions contained in section 128 of the statute, the learned Tribunal had rightly dismissed the claim petition. It is to be borne in mind that if we accede to the prayer of the appellants, we would be ignoring not only the provisions contained in the statute but would also amount to approving an illegal act committed by the motor cyclist. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. The application, being CAN 282 of 2015, is disposed of without any order as to costs. 9. Let the lower court records, if brought, be sent down forthwith. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Tribunal for information.