ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The wife of the deceased Narayan Kamble is in appeal before this Court against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in First Appeal (ST) No. 26961 of 2017. The High Court modified the Award dated 30.11.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baramati, Pune, Maharashtra. 3. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baramati, Pune, awarded a sum of Rs. 51,65,500/- along with interest @ 9% Per Annum from the date of the claim till realization. The Appellant was satisfied with the amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, but the amount of compensation was reduced by the High Court in the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. 4. Narayan Kamble (since deceased), the husband of the appellant met with an accident on 11.08.2012 with an offending Truck bearing Registration No. MH-42/B-9759, when he was riding a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. MH-42/V-5013. The deceased was not wearing a helmet and was driving the Motor Cycle with two other pillion riders. 5. The Insurance Company (Respondent herein) filed an appeal before the High Court. In the appeal, the deceased was held responsible for contributory negligence by the High Court and the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was reduced by 30%. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon the judgment of this Court in Mohammed Siddique & Anr. vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Others reported in (2020) 3 SCC 57 , wherein this Court held that the deceased was negligent as 3 persons on a motor cycle could have added to the imbalance. It was held that motor cyclist may be violating the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for which the deceased may be liable to penalty but such violation by itself, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence. This court held :- '13. But the above reason, in our view, is flawed. The fact that the deceased was riding on a motor cycle along with the driver and another, may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of contributory negligence. At the most it would make him guilty of being a party to the violation of the law. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a two wheeled motor cycle, not to carry more than one person on the motor cycle. At the most it would make him guilty of being a party to the violation of the law. Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, imposes a restriction on the driver of a two wheeled motor cycle, not to carry more than one person on the motor cycle. Section 194C inserted by the Amendment Act 32 of 2019, prescribes a penalty for violation of safety measures for motor cycle drivers and pillion riders. Therefore, the fact that a person was a pillion rider on a motor cycle along with the driver and one more person on the pillion, may be a violation of the law. But such violation by itself, without anything more, cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence, unless it is established that his very act of riding along with two others, contributed either to the accident or to the impact of the accident upon the victim. There must either be a causal connection between the violation and the accident or a causal connection between the violation and the impact of the accident upon the victim. It may so happen at times, that the accident could have been averted or the injuries sustained could have been of a lesser degree, if there had been no violation of the law by the victim. What could otherwise have resulted in a simple injury, might have resulted in a grievous injury or even death due to the violation of the law by the victim. It is in such cases, where, but for the violation of the law, either the accident could have been averted or the impact could have been minimized, that the principle of contributory negligence could be invoked. It is not the case of the insurer that the accident itself occurred as a result of three persons riding on a motor cycle. It is not even the case of the insurer that the accident would have been averted, if three persons were not riding on the motor cycle......' (Emphasis Supplied) 7. In the present case, there is no such evidence of contributory negligence except fact of three riders on the motor cycle and of not wearing helmet by the deceased. It is not even the case of the insurer that the accident would have been averted, if three persons were not riding on the motor cycle......' (Emphasis Supplied) 7. In the present case, there is no such evidence of contributory negligence except fact of three riders on the motor cycle and of not wearing helmet by the deceased. Therefore, in view of the enunciation of law, we find that the High Court was not justified in deducting 30% of the amount of compensation assessed by the Tribunal for the reason that the deceased was triple riding the Motor Cycle or was not wearing a helmet. The violation of rules for driving a motor vehicle is not a ground to deduct the amount of compensation awarded unless there is proof of either the accident could have been averted or the impact could have been minimized. 8. The deduction made by the High Court in the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on account of alleged contributory negligence is set aside. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the Award of the Tribunal is restored.