JUDGMENT : Though the matter is listed for Admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is heard for final adjudication. 2. This appeal is directed against the common judgment and award dated 27.08.2013 in MVC No.346/2012 passed by Senior Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Additional MACT-IV, Chitradurga, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant (a minor represented by his natural guardian/father) in respect of the vehicular accident dated 24.01.2012 was allowed in part. The appellant/claimant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation amount as inadequate. 3. Briefly stated, the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal in respect of a vehicular accident dated 24.01.2012 involving a motorcycle bearing No.KA 17/X5291 and a car bearing registration No.KA 03/MG7045. The claim petition was filed against the driver, owner and insurer of the car bearing No. KA 03/MG7045. In fact, the rider of the motorcycle was none other than the father of the injured and the jurisdictional Police had registered FIR against the driver of the motorcycle and also of the car. The rider of the Motor Cycle/father of the minor claimant also filed claim petition before the Tribunal for compensation in respect of injuries suffered by him in the same accident and both claims were disposed of by the Tribunal by common judgment and award. 4. The Tribunal, on over all appreciation of the evidence placed on record held that the rider of the Motor cycle had contributed negligence by 25% and awarded global compensation of Rs.15,000/- and directed the second respondent/insurer to pay 75% of the compensation so assessed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2015) 9 SCC 273 in the case of “Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Others” submits that since the claimant was a pillion rider, there was no inhibition for him to seek compensation from any of the tortfeasors since he has no role in the alleged accident. The jurisdictional Police registering FIR against the rider of the motorcycle has no bearing on his entitlement for the just and reasonable compensation. Claimant’s father had also filed a claim petition in MVC No.343/2012 and he was awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/-. The jurisdictional Police registering FIR against the rider of the motorcycle has no bearing on his entitlement for the just and reasonable compensation. Claimant’s father had also filed a claim petition in MVC No.343/2012 and he was awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/-. In both the cases, 25% of the contributory negligence was fixed on the claimant and the second respondent insurer of opposite vehicle was directed to pay only 75% of the award amount. Since the claimant/appellant herein was not responsible for the alleged negligence of the rider of the Motor cycle, the Tribunal could not have deducted 25% out of compensation awarded. Even otherwise, compensation amount awarded is inadequate considering the fact that the claimant was hospitalized for 9 days and his father had to spend 9 days with him giving up earning for the said period and had to incur expenses towards conveyance and miscellaneous expenses. Hence, the judgment of the court below may be modified by enhancing the compensation amount without deduction towards contributory negligence. 6. Sri. Ravish Benni, learned counsel for the second respondent-Insurer submits that there is no quarrel about the position of law regarding entitlement of an injured to seek compensation from any of the tortfeasors. The rider of the motorcycle having been held liable and negligent for the occurrence of accident by the Tribunal and he being none other than the father of the claimant, who was bound to take the proper care and custody of his minor ward and therefore, the Tribunal, has rightly deducted 25% out of the compensation amount of Rs.15,000/-. In the absence of documentary proof, global compensation awarded by the Tribunal is justified. 7. In the light of the above submissions, I have perused the impugned judgment and award and also evidentiary material borne out in the Lower Court records. 8. It is the very case of the claimant that since the driver of the car which was moving ahead of the Motor bike on which he was the pillion rider, stopped abruptly, the motor bike hit the car from behind, thus, both riders fell down and suffered injuries. That by itself would expose that the rider of Motor bike had not maintained safe distance from the car moving ahead of it. That by itself would expose that the rider of Motor bike had not maintained safe distance from the car moving ahead of it. The proposition that the pillion rider since not responsible for the accident, being a third party is entitled for entire compensation, cannot conveniently be applied in this case. The rider of the Motor cycle, since is the father and natural guardian of the claimant if suffered expenses towards medical treatment of his son, now he cannot setup an independent claim in respect of negligence of which he is also one of the tortfeasors. Claimant has not suffered grievous injuries resulting in permanent disability. The second respondent/insurer cannot be saddled with the liability of compensation for which the driver of car insured is not responsible. Hence, 75% of the compensation awarded out of total entitlement for compensation is just and proper. 9. However, coming to the question of quantum of compensation, the claimant had suffered three simple injuries and was hospitalized for 9 days. Naturally one adult attendant’s service would have been availed during the stay in the Hospital. 10. Having a over all view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is in the interest of justice to enhance the compensation by another Rs.15,000/-. Though he is entitled for total compensation of Rs.30,000/-, deduction by 25% towards contributory negligence as ordered by Tribunal does not warrant interference. Thus, the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.22,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The judgment and award dated 27.08.2013 in MVC No.346/2012 passed by Senior Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Additional MACT-IV, Chitradurga, is modified by awarding a compensation of Rs.22,500/with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. 12. The 2nd respondent-Insurer is directed to deposit the compensation of Rs.22,500/with interest at 6% p.a., less the amount, if any, received by the claimant-appellant, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Registry is directed to transmit the records to the jurisdictional Tribunal.