JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant in these three appeals who was the original respondent No. 4 in Motor Accident Claims Petition Nos.572 of 1998, 573 of 1998 and 80 of 1999 respectively has challenged the common judgment and award passed on 7th March, 2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beed (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) in the aforesaid Motor Accident Claims Petitions.

2. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are as under :

On 23rd November, 1996, the persons namely Abdul Gafar Abdul Rauf (Age : 35 years), Rabbani Chandsab Bagwan (Age : 35 years) and Sayyad Khajamiya s/o. Sayyed Abdul Rajak (Age : 23 years) alongwith others boarded Tempo No. MH-20/A-6664 for going to Nanded to attend religious function “Isthemas”. At about 22:30 hours the said tempo was passing through Majalgaon – Pathri road. In the vicinity of village Adgaon one tractor bearing No. MH-22/B-6381 attached with trolley bearing No. MH-22/6052 came from opposite direction, which was being driven in rash and negligent manner. The said tractor and trolley gave dash to the tempo and the said accident was occurred. The aforesaid persons namely Abdul Gafar, Rabbani and Sayyad Khajamiya sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the dependents/legal representatives of the aforesaid deceased persons who are respondent No.5 onwards in the aforesaid respective Motor Accident Claims Petitions fled the same against the present respondent No.1 to 3 who are the respective owners and insurer of the aforesaid tractor and trolley and the present appellant and respondent No.4 being owner and insurer of the tempo, for getting compensation. The learned Tribunal on the basis of oral and documentary evidence brought before it by the respective claimants in all these appeals as well as by considering the evidence of present respondent Nos.3 and 5 granted compensation to the respective claimants in these appeals from the present appellant only by exonerating present respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5. Hence, being a owner of tempo involved in the accident, the appellant has preferred these appeals.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant in all these appeals submits that, though the accident and deaths of concerned persons are admitted but the learned Tribunal wrongly exonerated owners and insurer of tractor and trolley as well as insurer of the tempo by observing that, the driver of tempo of the appellant had in fact caused the accident and since the said driver was carrying passengers in the said tempo which was goods vehicle, there was breach of policy conditions and, therefore, the present respondent No.4 i.e. insurer of the tempo was not liable for paying compensation. He further submits that, the tractor and trolley involved in the accident had in fact dashed to the tempo and there was no fault of driver of appellant, while driving the said tempo. He pointed out that, the deceased persons had in fact sustained injuries from the angle of trolley which pierced them. He further pointed out that, the F.I.R. had in fact lodged against both the respective drivers of tractor and trolley as well as tempo and therefore, it was clearly a case of contributory negligence. He also argued that, the respondent No.4 did not get any opportunity of leading evidence and therefore his contention as regards the negligence of driver of tractor and trolley did not come before the learned Tribunal.

4. In the alternative, learned Counsel for the appellant also prayed for atleast passing of pay and recover order against the Insurance Company of tempo i.e. present respondent No.4. In support of his submissions he relied upon the judgment in the case of Vasant Waman Aher Vs. Kalu Jana Gaveet and Ors., reported in 1997 (3) Mh.L.J. 6.

5. On the contrary, the respective learned Counsel for all the respondents – claimants in these appeals supported the impugned common judgment and award. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondent No.3 i.e. insurer of tractor and trolley st