JUDGMENT : (Prayer in C.M.A.No.278 of 2016: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2015 in M.C.O.P.No.478 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) at Perambalur. C.M.A.No.279 of 2016: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2015 in M.C.O.P.No.479 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) at Perambalur. C.M.A.No.280 of 2016: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2015 in M.C.O.P.No.480 of 2013, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge) at Perambalur.) Common Judgment (The case has been heard through video conference) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company and the Learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 in all cases. 2. These Appeals are preferred by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the common award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perambalur, fixing the liability to compensate for the injury sustained by the claimants, who were minors at the time of accident. One of them was riding the motorcycle carrying two other minors on the Highways road, without any license. 3. The accident as narrated in the claim petition is that, on 18.03.2013, at about 11.00 a.m, the minor P.Jothi Manikandan, aged about 15 years was driving the TVS – 50 moped carrying Minor P.Muthusamy @ Karthick (11 years) and Minor P. Kanakaraj (11 years) on the pillion. While approaching near Valasupatti Branch Road, a car bearing registration No.TN-45-AP-6520 owned by N.Mohammed Ghouse and driven by Mr.T.Sankar, duly insured under the appellant, rash and negligently hit the moped and caused accident. All three were thrown from the moped and got injured. They were admitted in the Hospital. Through their parents individual claim petitions were filed by the three injured persons. M.C.O.P.No.478 of 2013 filed by minor P.Muthusamy @ Karthick through his father Palanisamy, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. M.C.O.P.No. 479 of 2013 filed by minor P.Jothi Manikandan through his father Pichaimani, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. M.C.O.P.No.480 of 2013 filed by Minor P.Kanakaraj through his father Pichaimani claiming Rs.5,00,000/-. 4. M.C.O.P.No.478 of 2013 filed by minor P.Muthusamy @ Karthick through his father Palanisamy, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. M.C.O.P.No. 479 of 2013 filed by minor P.Jothi Manikandan through his father Pichaimani, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. M.C.O.P.No.480 of 2013 filed by Minor P.Kanakaraj through his father Pichaimani claiming Rs.5,00,000/-. 4. The averments made in the counter filed by the insurer is that, the Minor Jothi Manikandan, along with minors Kanagaraj (11 years) and Muthusamy @ Karthi (11 years) was riding the moped on the Trichy to Madurai, NH-45 Road, in the extreme right side of the road. The allegation that the driver of car bearing registration No.TN-45-AP-6520 drove his vehicle rash and negligently and hit behind the moped is incorrect and false. The moped was driven by the minor on the Highways road without license and recklessly. The rider of the two wheeler without noticing the on coming vehicle had invited the accident. The owner of the TVS – 50 moped was not impleaded as a party. He alone is responsible for permitting the minors to ride his moped on the Highways road. Being the tortfeasor and unauthorised passengers in the moped driven by minor, none of the claimants are entitled for compensation. The alleged treatment and quantum of compensation sought are also denied by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal has to consider the negligence contributed by rider of the moped for causing the accident. 5. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and evidence held that tripling in a two wheeler is per se cannot be presumed, to have contributed for the accident. Therefore, considering the disability certificate given by the Doctor, awarded Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.478 of 2013. Rs.4,05,000/- for the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.479 of 2013 and Rs.4,50,000/- for the claimants in M.C.O.P.No.480 of 2013. 6. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance company has preferred these three appeals. 7. The point canvassed in the Appeals are: Tribunal failed to note that the rider of the two wheeler was a minor aged 11 years. He was carrying two other minors on the pillion aged about 15 and 11 years. While travelling on the Highways Road, he has lost the balance and invited the accident. Having contributed to the accident and violating the policy condition, they are not entitled for any compensation. Driving without license and carrying two persons on the pillion were pointed as fundamental policy violation. While travelling on the Highways Road, he has lost the balance and invited the accident. Having contributed to the accident and violating the policy condition, they are not entitled for any compensation. Driving without license and carrying two persons on the pillion were pointed as fundamental policy violation. Hence, insurer has to be exonerated. 8. The Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the Courts have time and again held that there cannot be presumption against the rider or the passenger in case of tripling. Negligence is not a fact to presume, it has to be proved through evidence. In the absence of evidence, merely because the vehicle was driven by minor and met with an accident will not ipso facto lead to a presumption of contributory negligence. 9. The arguments made and the judgments cited as precedent by either side considered. 10. The facts of the instant case is that, three young boys aged between 11 to 15 were permitted to take a moped motorcycle by its owner to ply on the Highways Road in triples. Thus, the vehicle owner has violated the Motor Vehicle Act, on two counts. (i). Allowing the minor to rider a two wheeler without proper license and (ii). allowing the minor to carry two others on the pillion, while the R.C book is meant for 1 + 1. 11. No doubt, in some judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as High Courts including Madras High Court has observed that tripling in a moped per se is not a presumption for loss of balance or negligence. The person who alleges negligence has to prove the same. On the score of tripling, automatic deduction for contributing negligence is not permissible. 12. In a two wheeler the provision to travel is only for two persons. By accommodating more than two, naturally it will have a restriction on the driving ability of the rider. Particularly, when the driver has to apply sudden break while moving in high speed, the risk of losing balance is possible. This is a common knowledge by experience for any two wheeler rider. That apart, the minor aged about 11 years riding two wheeler with two other minors on the pillion one could easily visualize the danger involved in it. 13. The vehicle owner has allowed the minors to take his vehicle and ply on the National Highways Road. This is a common knowledge by experience for any two wheeler rider. That apart, the minor aged about 11 years riding two wheeler with two other minors on the pillion one could easily visualize the danger involved in it. 13. The vehicle owner has allowed the minors to take his vehicle and ply on the National Highways Road. Therefore, if at all any damages to be collected, it should be only from the moped TVS – 50 owner and not from the car insurer. None of these claimants have impleaded the moped owner, in which the minors were travelling. There is no evidence to show that the said moped TVS-50 had proper R.C and insurance. The Motor Vehicle Inspector report for the said TVS-50 moped is marked as Ex.X.1 through R.W.1. In this report, it is stated that the owner of the moped vehicle has not produced the R.C book and license of the rider. The D.W.1 report indicates that the front bumper and fork of the two wheeler got bend in the accident. If it is so, the allegation made in the claim petition that, the car dashed the two wheeler from behind proved to be false. The sketch marked as Ex.X.4, indicates that accident took place at Valasapadi road junction on the Trichy – Madurai Highways. The accident has occurred when the two wheeler rider has recklessly driven it and hit the car. 14. The judgments relied by the Tribunal and reiterated by the Learned Counsel for the respondents are factually different from the case in hand. It is not in all cases, the real tortfeasor could be exonerated by misapplying the benefit of the social legislation. 15. In this case, this Court finds that the principle of res ipsa loquitur and volenti non fit injuria has to be applied. Awarding compensation for the grave violators of Road Traffic Rules will only encourage more violation and will never ensure road discipline. Awarding compensation in violation of the rules and contractual terms will not ensure justice in true sense. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals C.M.A.Nos.278 to 280 of 2016 are Allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.Nos.478, 479, 480 of 2013 are hereby set aside. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that pursuant to the direction passed by this Court, the Insurance Company has deposited the award amount in the M.C.O.P account. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals C.M.A.Nos.278 to 280 of 2016 are Allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.Nos.478, 479, 480 of 2013 are hereby set aside. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that pursuant to the direction passed by this Court, the Insurance Company has deposited the award amount in the M.C.O.P account. If it is so, the Insurance Company is permitted to withdrawn the same on filing proper application. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.