Anil K. Narendran, J .

1. The appellant in M.A.C.A.No.63 of 2013 is the petitioner in OP(MV). No.647 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara. Similarly, the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.351 of 2013 is the petitioner in O.P.(MV)No.645 of 2002 on the file of the said Tribunal. The case of the appellants was that on 11.6.2001, the appellants along with others sustained injuries in a road accident, while travelling in a Maruti car bearing registration No.KL-2/G-6800, from Alappuzha to Ernakulam, through the National Highway. When the car reached Eramalloor junction, due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, the car hit against a tourist bus which was parked on the western side of the National Highway. Due to the impact of the collision, the aforesaid tourist bus hit another tourist bus which was parked in front of it. The appellants who sustained serious injuries in the accident were admitted at KVM Hospital, Cherthala and treated there as inpatients and subsequently they were treated in other hospitals as well.

2. The appellants filed O.P.(MV)Nos.647 of 2002 and 645 of 2002 respectively claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.2,64,500/- respectively for the injuries sustained by them. The first respondent is the driver of the Maruti car, the second respondent is its owner and the third respondent is its driver. Respondents 4 and 5 are the owner and insurer of the tourist bus bearing registration No.KL- 8/D-7770 and respondents 6 and 7 are the owner and insurer of the tourist bus bearing registration No.KL-4/J-1043.

3. Initially the claim petitions were dismissed by the Tribunal and the order of dismissal was set aside by this Court by judgment delivered on 4.4.2012 in M.A.C.A.No.1928 of 2011 and the cases were remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal after providing an opportunity to the appellants to adduce evidence. After remand, on the side of the appellants, Pws.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A15 were marked. On the side of the third respondent, Dws.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked.

4. The Tribunal by a common award dated 10.8.2012 once again dismissed the claim petitions holding that, there is total lack of evidence to prove negligence on the part of the first respondent-driver and in such circumstances, the appellants cannot succeed in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In view of the said finding, the Tribunal held that the appellants are not entitled for any compensation and resultantly, dismissed both the claim petitions. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal on 10.8.2012, in O.P. (MV)Nos.645 of 2002 and 647 of 2002, the appellants are before us in these appeals.

5. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent, the insurer of the Maruti car and also the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 5 and 7, who are the insurers of the tourist buses involved in the accident.

6. The sole issue that arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim petitions on the ground that there is total lack of materials to prove any negligence on the part of the first respondent-driver, who was driving the Maruti car at the time of the accident.

7. In the claim petitions filed before the Tribunal, the common case of the appellants was that at the time of accident, they were travelling in a Maruti car bearing registration No.KL-2/G-6800 driven by the first respondent. When the vehicle reached Eramalloor junction, due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, the car hit against a tourist bus bearing registration No.KL-8/D-7770 parked on the road margin on the western side of the National Highway. On account of the impact, the said bus hit against another tourist bus bearing registration No.KL-4/J-1043 parked in front of it.

8. The third respondent-insurer filed a written statement