These appeals can be conveniently disposed of by a common order as they involve facts which are common and the law applicable thereto.

2. These appeals are directed against the order dated 4/07/2008 of the learned MACT (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Mapusa by which the learned MACT has directed that compensation under Section 140 of the MV Act, 1988 be paid by the insurer (appellant, herein) as well as the insured (respondent no.3).

3. The appellant had issued a third party policy for a private vehicle bearing No. GA-01-N-9955 which was driven and owned by respondent no.3 and which was involved in an accident on 9/04/2006 at about 15.30 hrs. in which 5 occupants of the said vehicle died. The other respondents are the legal representatives of 4 out of 5 of the said occupants who filed claim petitions against the driver/owner as well as the insurer of the said vehicle including a claim under Section 140 of the Act, which as already stated, came to be decided by the impugned order dated 4/07/2008.

4. The said van bearing no. GA-01-N-9955 along with the said occupants was carrying fire crackers which exploded, due to which the van caught fire and the said occupants suffered severe burn injuries to which they succumbed in the hospital. A panchanama drawn subsequently, prima facie, shows that the said van caught fire as fire crackers were found in it. It appears that an FIR has been lodged on 1/05/2006 against the Committee members of Vithoba Rukmini Temple, Betim and one Suresh Narcekar. The post mortem report dated 12/04/2006 showed that the said occupants died due to burn injuries.

5. There is no dispute that the policy issued by the appellant was produced before the learned MACT at the time of passing the impugned order. The said policy admittedly is a third party policy and it appears that the insured/owner of the said van had paid additional premium to cover certain other risks which included a premium of Rs.40/-covering risk of 4 unnamed passengers in the sum of Rs.20,000/-per person. Another sum of Rs.100/- was paid to cover personal accident to the owner cum driver in the sum of Rs.2 lacs and a sum of Rs.25/-was also paid to cover the risk of an employee, presumably under workman compensation.

6. Not only the policy was produced before the MACT at the time of deciding the application under Section 140 of the Act, but, it was also admitted that the said vehicle was insured with the respondent no.2 (the appellant, herein), and it was specifically stated in the reply filed by the appellant that the liability, if any, was limited to the terms and conditions of the policy.

7. However, it appears from the impugned order that certain submissions were made on behalf of the appellant-respondent no.2 that there were certain breaches committed in relation to the said policy. It was contended that there was a breach of policy of insurance since the fire crackers were kept in the van and, therefore, the insurer had no liability, but, this submission was declined to be accepted as the learned Tribunal found that no such plea was taken in the written statement or in the reply filed to the application for compensation under no fault liability. It also appears that another submission was made that the driver (respondent no.1) had no valid driving licence and this plea also was rejected as no plea was taken in that regard. The learned MACT proceeded on the basis that the vehicle belonged to the respondent no.3, herein, and was used at the time of the accident and the deceased were some of the occupants. The vehicle had caught fire and in that process the deceased had suffered grievous injuries and had died and therefore the respondent no.3 was primarily liable to pay statutory compensation and since the vehicle was insured at the relevant time with the appellant (respondent no.2) and since there was no specific defence raised regarding the breach of policy conditions, the said respondent no.2 (appellant, herein) was liable t