M.C.Sharma, J. - (1.) THE United India Insurance Company Limited (in short the appellant insurance company) has filed these eight appeals against the common award dated 21.7.2012 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (in short MACT) in Claim Cases Nos. 1318/2009, 1321/2009, 1134/2008, 1136/2008, 1132/2008, 1135/2008, 1133/2008, and 1317/2009 whereby the claim petitions filed by the claimants were allowed and they were awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 63,000, Rs. 73,000/ -, Rs. 41,040, Rs. 86,000/ -, Rs. 4,08,000/ -, Rs. 96,000/ -, Rs. 54,000/ -, and Rs. 30,000/ - respectively. It will be proper for this Court to decide these appeals by this common order. The facts have been set out in the impugned award and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 23.7.2007 Banwari Lal, Phool Chand, Mukesh, Rameshwar, Mahendra, Vijay Kumar, Puran mal, Jaswant, Banna Ram, Jhabar Mal, Balram, Gopal were going in a commandar Jeep bearing No. RJ 02 C 3318 to attend the marriage of their relative from Amrassar to Lat ka Baas. The said jeep was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver. At 4.30 p.m. no sooner did the jeep reach near Jagdish Mode, the tanker bearing No. RJ 23 G 1126 which was also coming from Shahpura side and being driven rashly and negligently its driver hit the front side of jeep resulting in Banwarilal and Phool Chand died and Puran Mal, Mukesh, Puran Mal, Jhabar Mal, Mahendra, Balram, Jaswant, Vinay and Rameshwar got injuries. FIR was lodged in police Station Ajitgarh District Sikar. After investigation challan was filed against both the vehicles i.e. Jeep and Tanker under Secs. 279, 337, 338, and 304A IPC. The Tanker was insured with United India Insurance Company while jeep was insured with National Insurance Company. The injured persons and the legal representatives of deceased persons filed the claim petitions. The non -claimant No. 2, owner of the tanker filed the reply and prayed for dismissing the claim petition. Non -claimants 3, 5 and 6 did not appear despite notices being served upon them therefore exparte proceedings have been initiated against them. The non -claimant No. 4 United India Insurance Company being insurer of tanker, filed reply and denied the averments in the claim petitions. It was specifically stated in the reply that Jeep being No. RJ 2 C 3318 was having 14 passengers and one driver which was more than the capacity of a jeep due to which the jeep driver could not control the jeep and lost the balance therefore this accident occurred. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the MACT framed four issues. After recording of the evidence and hearing the parties, the MACT passed the common award dated 21.7.2012 awarding compensation in the claim petitions mentioned above. Against the common award the above eight appeals were filed by the appellant insurance company for dismissing the claim petitions. Common arguments of the learned counsel for the insurance company in all these eight appeals are that the findings arrived at by the MACT are absolutely perverse and contrary to the record. Mrs. Archana Mantri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company has further drawn attention of this Court that the accident took place on 23.7.2007. FIR was lodged on 23.7.2007 and same day site inspection report and site inspection map was prepared. Site inspection report and site inspection map show that jeep was also solely responsible for the accident. AW. 6 Jabar Mal who appeared in the witness box admitted in cross -examination that truck was on its right side and the jeep came into truck side and hit the tanker. It was further contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles but later on they had changed their version having known this fact that they could not get compensation from the insurance company of the jeep as it was being used by breaching condition of policy. The jeep was being driven overloaded. The learned counsel has further contended that while deciding issue No. 1 the MACT has held that the tanker driver has contributed 70% negligency towards accident while jeep driver contributed 30% negligency towards accident on the basis of the statements of eye witnesses as well as documentary evidence available on record. The aforesaid issue No. 1 has not been decided as per the evidence submitted by all the parties and as per the law. The learned counsel also assailed the issue No. 3 in all the eight appeals.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellants Mrs. Archana Mantri at the admission stage of the case specifically on issues 1, 2 and 3 in all the appeals. I have gone through the award dated 21.7.2012. On issue No. 3 the MACT held as under: It is amply clear that the grounds which have been raised in the misc. appeals have clearly been answered by the MACT while deciding the issue No. 3. I do not think it proper to admit these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed in limine. The stay applications also stand dismissed.;