1. M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2026 and 2003 of 2007 are directed against the common order passed in O.P.Nos.1160 and 1117 of 2004 dated 11.06.2007, whereas M.A.C.M.A.No.1999 of 2007 is directed against the award, dated 11.06.2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

2. The claimants are different in all the original petitions, but the claims arise out of the same accident involving motor vehicle Tata Sumo bearing No. AP-23-B-5656. The accident took place on the intervening night of 10/11.01.2001 at 12’o clock, while the said vehicle was on the way from Hyderabad, after crossing Gachibowli near Doyens Colony at which place the vehicle turned turtle and Mr.M.Rajeshwar, his son M.Krishna and M.Basavalingam were traveling in the vehicle. Mr. M.Rajeshwar and his son Krishna died on the spot. Basavalingam was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and he succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment.

3. O.P.No.1160 of 2004 was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased M.Rajeshwar on account of death of Rajeshwar in the motor vehicle accident. O.P.No.1117 of 2004 was filed by M.Shobha who is the mother of the sole surviving legal representative of M.Krishna. She is no other than the wife of M.Rajeshwar and thus, she is also the first claimant in O.P.No.1160 of 2004. O.P.No.1116 of 2004 was filed by the legal representative of M.Basavalingam.

4. The learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- to the claimants in O.P.No.1160 of 2004 and an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the sole claimant in O.P.No.1117 of 2004 and granted an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the claimants in O.P.Nos.1116 of 2004.

5. All the appeals have been filed by the United India Insurance Company, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad which is the second respondent before the Tribunal. The main challenge by the Insurance Company to the award relates to its liability to pay compensation, though the quantum of compensation has also been assailed.

6. Since all the claims against which the present appeals have been filed arise out of the same accident, and common questions of law and fact would arise for consideration, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment.

7. The brief facts, relevant for considering the appeals, may be stated, as follows:

Mr. M.Rajeshwar borrowed the Tata Sumo bearing No. AP-23-B-5656 from his brother Omprakash who is the first respondent herein for the purpose of getting his sons from the residential school in Hyderabad on the eve of Sankranthi festival holidays, and he left his house on 09.01.2001 at about 5 p.m. in the Tata Sumo vehicle along with the driver Basavalingam, picked up his two sons from the hostel and was returning back and while the vehicle was on the way, after crossing Gachibowli, when it reached Doyens Colony, the vehicle turned turtle at 12’o clock, as a result of which, all the inmates of the vehicle sustained severe injuries. M.Rajeshwar and M.Krishna died on the spot. Basavalingam was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for treatment and he also died while undergoing treatment. Admittedly, at the time of accident, Basavalingam who was said to be the driver of the vehicle was not driving, but M.Rajeshwar was driving the same.

8. The contention urged by the appellant/insurance company is that it is not liable to pay compensation since the insured Omprakash committed breach of terms of the policy and further that the claims preferred by all the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are not maintainable in as much as there is no evidence establishing the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle at material time.

9. The learned Tribunal framed issued No.1 as follows:

Whether the accident took place on the intervening night of 10/11.01.2001 due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo bearing No. AP-23-B-5656 by its driver resulting in the death of deceased?

10. The second issue, however, relates to the liability of the insured Omprakash and the