MINOR MUNAVIR ZAMAN Vs. A.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C O M M O N J U D G M E N T Admit.

(2.) THE third respondent appears through counsel. Notice to the respondents 1 and 2 is dispensed with in view of the challenge involved in this appeal and the decision I propose to take.

(3.) THE appellants claimed compensation from the respondents 1 to 3 in O.P(M.V).Nos.1012 and 1013 of 2011 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode (for short, "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent, fixed compensation payable to the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.2134 of 2012 at '.15,050/- and the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.2137 of 2012 at '.13,150/- with 7% interest from the date of application till recovery, fastened liability on the respondents 1 to 3 and directed the third respondent, insurer of the jeep to deposit the said amount. Appellants are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation.