I.MAHANTY, J. - (1.)THE New India Assurance Company Limited is the appellant in the above two appeals and assails the judgments/awards dated 8.8.2002 and 7.8.2002 passed in Misc. Case No. 230 of 1997 and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Misc. Case No. 239 of 1997 respectively by 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhubaneswar.
(2.)THE claims arose out of an accident which took place on 21.3.1997 at 8.30 p.m. at Jatni -Khurda By -pass Chhak on N.H.No. 5. It is further stated that the deceased, his family members and other relations had gone to Puri to perform worship before Lord Jagannath and while returning in a jeep bearing registration No. ORP 8850 the driver of the jeep parked the vehicle on eastern side pitch portion of Khurda -Jatni road in order to cross N.H.No. 5. At that time a Trailor Truck bearing registration No. N.L.05/A -2574 was coming from Berhampur side and proceeding towards Bhubaneswar at a very high speed and in the process of overtaking some parked vehicle on the National Highway, the driver of the Trailor steered the vehicle to extreme right of the road and consequently dashed against the parked jeep with violent force, as a result of which the deceased Rama Chandra Barisal fell down from the jeep and was crushed under the wheels of the Trailor and died at the spot. Apart from that the son of the deceased also sustained severe fracture and bleeding injuries on his person. The legal heirs of the deceased filed M.A.C.T. Misc. Case No. 239 of 1997 before the 3rd M.A.C.T., Bhubaneswar claiming a compensation of Rs. 2,65,000/ - against the owners and insurers of both the offending vehicles and in claim Misc. Case No. 230 of 1997 the injured son of the deceased, namely, Sujit Barisal claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/ - for permanent physical and functional disability, against the owners and insurers of both the vehicles.
Though Sk. Ibrahim Bux (O.P.No. 1) (owner of the jeep) appeared before the Tribunal and filed a written submission, he did not prefer to contest the case and as such Opposite party No. 1 was set ex -parte. Opposite party No. 1 -M/s. G.S.Atwal and Co. (Eng.) Private Limited owner of the Trailor did not appear in spite of receipt of summons and as such, opposite party No. 2 was set ex -parte. Opposite parties 3 and 4, i.e., the insurers of the offending jeep and trailor respectively appeared and filed their written submission and contested the case. In essence, the Insurance Companies have contested the case by denying the allegations of the claimants and also denied the income and source of income of deceased at the time of accident. Both the insurance companies also took the defence that they have no knowledge about the accident and the drivers of the offending vehicles had neither possessed any valid driving licence nor the vehicles were duly covered under the insurance policy granted by them. The Opposite party No. 3 (New India Assurance Company Limited) also took a further defence that the policy granted by it, though valid on the date of accident, no passenger was covered under the said Policy.

(3.)THE Claims Tribunal framed the following issues in MACT Misc. Case No. 239 of 1997 in MACT Misc. Case No. 239 of 1997 :
(1) Whether the death of Sri Ram Chandra Barisal was due to the Motor vehicle accident involving vehicle Nos. ORP 8850 Jeep and N.L.05/A -2572 (Trailor) ?

(2) Whether the drivers of the vehicles were rash and/or negligent in causing the accident ? (3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and, if so to what extent and from which O.Ps. ?