1. These three appeals arise out of a common award dt. 7th July, 1979, passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in M.J.C. (Motor Claims) case No. 123 of 1977 whereby and whereunder an application for claim filed on behalf of Smt. Sarda Devi, Pratibha Devi and Laxmi Narain Singh in terms of S.110A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called for brevity as the Act) for grant of compensation on account of the death of one Vidyadhar Singh was allowed. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 73 of 1979(R) has been filed by the New India Insurance Company Ltd. The appellant of the aforementioned appeal has mainly challenged the award, inter alia on the ground that the said Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation as the truck in question was not insured with it. It has further been contended that the claim petition filed as against the said appellant is barred by limitation.

2. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 75 of 1979(R) has been filed on behalf of the claimants. In the said appeal an award relating to the quantum of compensation granted by the learned tribunal below is in question. It has been contended inter alia, in the aforementioned appeal that appellant No. 1 Smt. Sarda Devi, who was the mother of the deceased, was also entitled to compensation. In the said appeal, the appellants have claimed compensation to the extent of Rs. 50,000.00 besides the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal below.

3. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 77 of 1979(R) has been filed on behalf of M/s. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. In the said appeal, inter alia, it has been contended that the said company is not liable to pay any compensation in view of the fact that it has been found by the learned court below itself that the driver of the car in question which was insured with it was not negligent but the driver of the truck with which the car collided was being driven rashly and negligently. It has been contended that the negligence on the part of the driver of the car has not been proved and as such the appellant company is not liable to pay any compensation in respect thereof. In this appeal, the amount of compensation granted to the claimants has also been questioned.

4. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass and the basic facts are not in dispute.

5. The appellants of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 75 of 1979(R) filed an application purported to be under S.110A of the Act in the court of the Judicial Commissioner at Ranchi which was registered as M.J.C.No. 123 of 1977. In the said application, it was contended that the deceased Vidyadhar was a motor driver as also motor mechanic. The deceased at the time of his death was about 24 years old and was in service of one Shyam Narain Singh. He was one of the passengers travelling in a car bearing No. BHN 225 which met with an accident, as a truck bearing registration No. BRN 9304 dashed against it. It is alleged that the said truck was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver thereof. The aforementioned accident took place on 2nd July, 1977, and the deceased having sustained grievous injuries succumbed thereto on 6th July, 1977. According to the claimants, the deceased was having a monthly income of Rs. 500/-. It was further alleged that he was married in the year 1970 and the petitioner-appellant No. 2, the widow of the deceased, is a young girl and was pregnant at the material time. Owing to the shock caused to the petitioner appellant No. 2 she gave birth to a still born child. In view of the prevailing custom, there is no chance for her re-marriage. According to the claimants, the deceased was the only earning member in the family and had he been alive he would have earned more than Rs. 1000.00 per month. According to the claimants, he was not only earning his livelihood by doing his job as a driver but he was also a motor mechanic and was engaged in the said job in part-time.

6. The aforementioned claim petition appears to have been filed on 23rd D