I.A. Ansari, J.

1. We have heard Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned senior Counsel, for the insurer appellant and Mr. S.P. Mahanta, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the claimants-respondents.

2. By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of all the appeals enlisted above, for, on the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, all these appeals have been heard together as the appeals involve largely identical facts and common questions of law, the same are capable of being disposed of together and it is conceded by the learned Counsel for the parties that the decision in any of these appeals will have a bearing on the outcome of the remaining appeals.

3. We, first, cull together the material facts and various stages, which have led to the present appeals:

(i) On 25.10.1999 at about 7 p.m., the bus bearing registration No. ML 05-9275, owned by the respondent No. 1 herein and driven by respondent No. 2 herein, while carrying contrary to the road permit, more than the permissible capacity of 38 passengers, fell into a deep gorge at Peitkynsaw-Sohra Road near Mawpykrong village in the East Khasi Hills district of Meghalaya. Many of the passengers suffered injuries and out of them as many as 34 passengers succumbed to their injuries. In connection with the said accident Sohra Police Station Case No. 31(10) of 1999 under Sections 279/337/338/427/304-A of Indian Penal Code was registered. Altogether 46 claim applications have so far been filed in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shillong under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, 'the Act'), seeking compensation. By M.A.C. Case Nos. 3 of 2000, 61 of 1999, 48 of 1999, 31 of 2000, 13 of 2001, 30 of 2000, 26 of 2000, 23 of 2001, 46 of 1999, 29 of 2000 and 2 of 2000, claimants made applications seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by them; whereas M.A.C. Case Nos. 64 of 1999, 41 of 1999, 16 of 2000, 34 of 1999, 68 of 1999, 32 of 1999, 72 of 1999, 19 of 2000, 49 of 2000, 73 of 1999, 44 of 1999, 43 of 1999, 31 of 1999, 47 of 1999, 1 of 2000, 22 of 2000, 75 of 1999, 69 of 1999, 60 of 1999, 50 of 1999, 66 of 1999, 17 of 2000, 35 of 1999, 70 of 1999, 74 of 1999, 15 of 2000, 67 of 1999, 51 of 1999, 42 of 1999, 66 of 1999, 11 of 2000 and 13 of 2000 were instituted by the legal representatives of those injured persons, who had succumbed to their injuries.

(ii) The vehicle involved in accident was, admittedly, insured at the relevant point of time with the present appellants, namely, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The owner as well as the driver of the said bus were impleaded as party respondents to the claim applications. Though the relevant insurance policy admittedly covered the risk in respect of 34 passengers, neither the owner nor the driver of the said bus appeared and contested the said claim applications. The insurer on the basis of the applications made under Section 170 of the Act, contested the claim applications on all defences available to the owner of the said vehicle.

(iii) During the pendency of the claim applications made under Section 166 of the Act, the learned Tribunal granted, on the strength of the applications made by the claimants under Section 140 of the Act, interim compensation on the basis of no fault liability and claimants-respondents accordingly received the same.

(iv) In course of time learned Tribunal framed issues in the claim applications. Both the contesting parties to the proceedings, namely, the claimants as well as the insurer adduced evidence, insurer having adduced common evidence, by examining two witnesses in support of its case and proved a number of documents including the relevant insurance policy and the driving licence of the driver, who had at the relevant point of time driven the said bus.

(v) By the award dated 21.12.2001, the learned Tribunal disposed of as many as 23 claim applications, covered by M.A.C. Case Nos. 70 of 1999, 72 of 1999, 19 of 2000, 32 of 1999, 73 of 1999, 49 of 1999, 68 of 1999, 3