JUDGMENT :

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned common judgment and award dated 02/30.12.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Banaskantha (hereinafter be referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P. Nos.598 of 2001, 597 of 2001 and 599 of 2001, the appellant – United India Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred these appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”.)

2. Following facts emerge from the record of the appeals –

2.1 That the accident occurred on 20.11.2001. It is the case of the original claimants that the deceased Marad Siddik Sota, deceased Bhalu Lakha Sota, injured Khengarji Akherajaji Jadeja and injured Roopubha Tamachi Jadeja were travelling in Jeep bearing registration No.GJ-12-K-8141 and when the claimants approached at Mankuva, the Truck bearing registration No.GJ-12-T-7166 came from front side in rash and negligent manner dashed with the said Jeep as a result of which one Murad Siddik Sota and Bhalu Lakha Sota sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries and one Khengarji Akherajaji Jadeja and Roopubha Tamachi Jadeja sustained bodily injuries. Hence, the original claimants have filed M.A.C.P. Nos.598 of 2001, 597 of 2001 and 599 of 2001 before the Tribunal. The FIR at Exhibit 51 was lodged with the jurisdictional police station and the claim petitions were filed under Section 166 of the Act by the claimants and they claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively. The claimants have examined before the Tribunal at Exhibit 50 in M.A.C.P. No.599 of 2001, at Exhibit 52 in M.A.C.P. No.598 of 2001 and at Exhibit 53 in M.A.C.P. No.597 of 2001 respectively.

2.2 The claimants relied upon the various documentary evidence such as FIR at Exhibit 59, Panchnama of the scene of occurrence at Exhibit 60, P. M. Report of Murad Siddik at Exhibit 67 and Bhalu Lakha at Exhibit 75, Insurance Policy of Jeep at Exhibit 69, Medical certificates issued by the doctor. The Tribunal, after evaluating the pleadings and evidence tendered by the parties, partly allowed the claim petitions and awarded a sum of Rs.4,10,000/- in M.A.C.P. No.598 of 2001, Rs.4,10,000/- in M.A.C.P. No.599 of 2001 and Rs.40,00,750/- under the different heads as against the respective claims. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned common judgment and award, the appellant – Insurance Company preferred these appeals.

3. Heard Mr. Maulik Shelat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company and Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.11 – New India Assurance Company Ltd. Though served to the other respondents, who have chosen not to appear before the Court.

4. Mr. Shelat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company submitted that the present appeals are filed mainly on the ground of liability of the appellant 50% each. He submitted that the appellant – Insurance Company insured jeep involved in the accident in question and respondent no.11 – Insurance Company insured truck involved in the accident. He also submitted that the Tribunal held the contributory negligence on the part of the present appellant and respondent no.11 50% each. He further submitted that the Tribunal has materially erred in overlooking the fact that the claimants were travelling in the insured Jeep where the appellant has issued liability only policy – Act only policy and, therefore, the risk of the passengers sitting in the Jeep is not covered under such policy. He submitted that there was no additional premium to pay the compensation. He relied upon the policy of the Jeep at Exhibit 69 and submitted that the appellant has not liable for the claims raised by the claimants as the risk was not covered under such policy. He submitted that even the Tribunal has noted the said fact, which has not been dealt with in its true spirit. Mr. Shelat, learned counsel, in order to buttress his arguments,