1. All the five Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise against the awards passed in five claim petitions by the common order, dated 28.12.2001, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge-cum-Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. All the claim petitions in O.P.Nos.478, 604, 605, 606 & 607 of 1999 arise out of the same accident.

2. The five deceased in the five claim petitions went to Ramanaidu Film Studio at Film Nagar at Hyderabad on behalf of E.T.V to cover the shooting of a film, in a Jeep No.AP 10T 7011. After completing the coverage of the event, the five deceased were returning in the jeep when there was a big bomb blast totally damaging the jeep and killing all its occupants. The jeep belongs to the first respondent in all the five cases and was insured with the second respondent in all the five cases.

3. The dependents/legal representatives of the five deceased filed the claim petitions for compensation.

4. The first respondent, owner of the jeep, remained ex parte in all the five cases, while the second respondent/insurer contested all the five cases putting the claimants to strict proof of their allegations and admitting the insurance of the vehicle owned by the first respondent with it which was subsisting at the time of the accident. The insurer claimed that it was a bomb planted in some other vehicle that exploded when the insured vehicle was passing by the side of that vehicle and it was the impact of the explosion that resulted in the damage to the vehicle. There was no connection between the usage of the insured motor vehicle and the accident and hence, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. The compensation might have to be claimed from the owner and insurer of the vehicle in which the bomb was planted as the deceased would be third parties to that vehicle and no case was registered against the insured jeep driver. The jeep driver was not shown to be having a valid license and the claims were exorbitant. Hence, the insurer desired the petitions to be dismissed.

5. During the common enquiry into all the five claim petitions, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-7, B-1 and B-2 were marked.

6. In the impugned common order leading to the five awards, the Tribunal referred to Ex.A-1-First Information Report and Ex.B-2-Judgment in C.C.No.330 of 1998 and noted that the five deceased were travelling in the damaged insured jeep in the course of their employment with the first respondent and that the incident was the result of factious disputes between the first accused in the Sessions Case and one Sri Paritala Ravi in Anantapur District. The Tribunal opined that the first respondent, the owner of the jeep had not taken reasonable care for ensuring the safety of the television crew while sending them to the film studio for recording the ‘Muhurtham’ shot of the movie sought to be produced by Sri Paritala Ravi. Considering that the first respondent is the sister concern of E.T.V. and Eenadu Newspaper, the Tribunal presumed that the first respondent must have been aware of the factious disputes and ought not to have sent its crew without any security. Attributing negligence to the first respondent due to failure to perform such duty, the Tribunal also concluded that when the accident took place when the deceased were in the employment of the first respondent, both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation. Then the Tribunal went on to assess the quantum of compensation payable to the claimants in each case and directed compensation awarded in each case to carry interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs, while also directing the manner in which the compensation, has to be disbursed to the claimants.

7. The insurer is the appellant in all the five cases challenging the conclusions about the absence of reasonable care by the first respondent and contending that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicl