T. Vaiphei, J.

1. Aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 5th December, 2008 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shillong in MAC Cases No. 12 to 14 of 2006 awarding compensations of varying amounts in favour of the three claimant-respondent the appellant-insurer is preferring this batch of appeals, which were taken up together for hearing and are now being disposed off by this common judgment.

2. The common facts giving rise to this appeal may be noticed at the outset. On 28th April, 2005 the deceased was travelling in a truck bearing registration number ML-05-C-8947 driven by one Suberline Kyrsian alongwith three occupants and the same was proceeding from Lahuleng to Umraleng on the way to Mawiong village. Unfortunately, on the way, the truck went off the road and fell into gorge resulting in the death of the said driver and two of the occupants, namely, Marwet Kurbah and What Kyrsian, while the third occupant, namely, Adding Kurbah sustained injuries and managed to survive. The injured filed a claim petition being MAC Case No. 12 of 2006, while the legal heirs of the deceased occupants, Mrs. Nazareth Khyliat, w/o late Marwet Kurbah and Mrs. Sitra Kyrsian, sister of the late Watphrangbor Kyrsian also filed separate claim petitions, which were registered as MAC No. 13 of 2006 and MAC No. 14 of 2006 respectively. Both the owner of the offending truck and the insurer-appellant contested the claim petitions and filed their respective written statements. The Tribunal took up the three claim petitions jointly. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for determination :

ISSUES

1. Whether this claim application is maintainable?

2. Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck?

3. Whether the driver of the said truck No. ML-05-C-8974 has a valid license at the time of the accident?

4. Whether the OP/New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is liable to pay compensation to the claimant and indemnify the OP/Owner of the Truck No. ML-05-C-8974?

5. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent?

In MAC No. 12/06, the following additional issues were framed:

ADDITIONAL ISSUES

1. Whether claimant was the handyman in Truck No. ML-05-C-8974 and was travelling in that capacity in Truck on the date of the accident?

2. Whether the claimant sustained injuries in the accident, if so, what was the extent and effect of the injuries?

In MAC No. 13 of 2006, the following additional issue was framed :

1. Whether the deceased Late Marwat Kurbah was a labourer/helper employed in Truck No. ML-05-C-8974?

3. The claimants examined themselves as their own witnesses and have also examined the I.O. of the case as their common witness to substantiate their respective cases. The claimant in MAC No. 13 of 2006 also examined one Rolet Nongsiej as CW 3, while the claimant in MAC No. 14 of 2006, the claimant examined one Loska Kyrsian as CW 3. The owner of the offending vehicle also examined himself as OPW 1, being the common witness in all the three cases, but no evidence was led by the appellant-insurer. At the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal by the impugned judgment awarded (a) sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the claimant respondent in MAC No. 12 of 2006; (b) a sum of Rs. 3,72,500/- to the claimant in MAC No. 13 of 2006, and (c) ? 12,12,500/- to the claimant in MAC No. 14 of 2006. In so far as the award of ? 10,000/- made in MAC No. 12 of 2006, which is the subject-matter of MAC Appeal No. 3(SH) of 2009, I am at a loss to understand the rationality in preferring the appeal at all when there is a finding to the effect that the claimant therein sustained injuries and when the amount awarded is nominal in nature. Appeal just for the sake of appeal cannot be entertained by this Court: the precious time of this Court cannot be wasted for trivial matters. The MAC Appeal No. 3(SH) of 2009 is accordingly dismissed at the very threshold wi