These three appeals have been filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, which is the second respondent in the claim petition before the Tribunal and the cross objections have been filed by the claimants in each case against the award dated 26.10.2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in O.P.Nos.348, 347 and 343 of 2004.

2. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the insurance company and the learned counsel appearing for the claimants/cross objectors.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the claim petitions before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the claimants in each case may be stated as follows:

On the intervening night of 30/01.05.2004 while the deceased viz. Sara Prabhu, his wife Andolamma, his daughter Sara Soni and his son were returning on Luna moped bearing No.APB 3335 after attending a function, and when they reached the outskirts of Sadasivapet town, an Eicher van bearing No. AP 28 T 4883 driven by the owner himself in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side, dashed the Luna moped, due to which the three deceased viz. Sara Prabhu, his wife Andolamma, and his daughter Sara Soni fell down, received grievous injuries and died instantaneously. The Luna moped was also damaged in the accident. Basing on the evidence of PW.2, an eyewitness to the accident, the leaned Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Eicher Van bearing No. AP 28 T 4883 belonging to the first respondent, which was insured with the appellant/insurance company. The learned Tribunal accordingly held that the owner of the said van, who is the respondent No.1 and the appellant/insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

4. The said finding is assailed by the insurance company in these appeals contending that the Eicher van bearing No.AP 28 T 4883 was not at all involved in the accident and it was implicated by the police as an afterthought, so as to enable the claimants to claim compensation from the first respondent and the appellant/insurance company. Thus, the finding that the accident occurred due to involvement of the Eicher van bearing No.AP 28 T 4883, is sought to be set aside in these appeals. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company that the accident occurred on the intervening night of 30/01.05.2004, in fact, nobody had witnessed the accident, PW.2 was planted as an eyewitness by the claimants. It has been further contended that the accident occurred on the intervening night of 30/01.05.2004 and the FIR was lodged on 01.05.2004 i.e. on the next day without furnishing the number of the vehicle which was involved in the accident, subsequently, a charge sheet was filed by the police naming PW.2 as eyewitness. It has also been contended that since four persons were travelling on the Luna moped, the deceased Sara Prabhu, who was driving the vehicle had no valid driving licence, there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who was driving the said vehicle, and the learned Tribunal ought to have recorded a finding that the appellant/insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

5. Admittedly, four persons i.e. Sara Prabhu his wife Andolamma, his daughter Sara Soni and his son were proceeding on Luna moped, when it was knocked down by the Eicher van bearing No. AP 28 T 4883 and no proof has been placed on record by the insurance company, that the deceased Sara Prabhu, who was driving the Luna Moped had no valid driving licence. In any event, the Tribunal has recorded a specific finding basing on the evidence available on record that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Eicher van bearing No. AP 28 T 4883 while the deceased were proceeding on the Luna moped. Absolutely, there was no material on record to show that the