SUNIL KUMAR GARG, J.

( 1 ) ALL the above-mentioned civil misc. appeals filed by the owner of the truck in question are being decided by this common judgment as all of them have arisen out of the same accident and in all of them identical and common questions of law and facts are involved. S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 635 of 1998:

( 2 ) THIS civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 27. 7. 1998 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims tribunal (First), Jodhpur (for short the claims Tribunal) in M. A. C. T. Case No. 288 of 1995 by which the learned Claims tribunal has, on account of the death of chutraram, passed an award of Rs. 76,500 in favour of the claimant-respondent Nos. 4 to 6, namely, Madki, Jetha Ram and bhinjaram respectively, who are the LRs. of the deceased Chutraram and against the present appellant No. 1 Amrit Lal, the owner of truck in question and National insurance Co. Ltd. , respondent No. 3 (for short the insurance company) and the railway administration (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) were exonerated from their liability to pay the compensation to the claimant-respondent Nos. 4 to 6.

( 3 ) IT arises in the following circumstances: on 12. 6. 1991, a truck bearing No. RRN 5343, owner of which was the appellant no. 1 Amrit Lal, was being driven by one avad Ram (who also died in the accident)and the truck was carrying about 50-60 passengers and was going towards Satlana and when it reached near Satlana railway crossing, which was unguarded and unmanned level crossing, it met with accident with the railway engine, as a result of which, deceased Chutraram and some other persons died including the driver of the truck in question and some other persons received injuries. Thereafter, on 11. 11. 1991, a claim petition was filed by the claimant-respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6 being the wife and sons of the deceased Chutraram and at the time of accident, the age of the deceased Chutraram was 60 years and he was doing the work of blacksmith and Rs. 3,00,000 were claimed as compensation by the claimant-respondent Nos. 4 to 6. In the claim petition, it was asserted by the claimant-respondent Nos. 4 to 6 that apart from the negligence of the driver of the truck in question, there was also negligence on the part of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (railway administration) as compliance of paras 1604 (6), 1611 (0), 1613 and 1601 of the Indian Railways and works Manual was not made by them as a result whereof, the alleged accident took place. A reply to the claim petition was filed by the appellant No. 1 Amrit Lal, owner of the truck in question and it was asserted by him that the truck in question was being driven by the driver slowly, but accident took place because of the negligence of the driver of the railway engine. Apart from this, at the time of the accident, there was no gate at the railway crossing in question and the railway crossing was unguarded and unmanned level crossing. Hence, claim against appellant No. 1 Amrit Lal, owner of the truck in question, be dismissed. Respondent No. 3 insurance company also filed a separate reply to the claim petition and it asserted that the truck in question was meant for carrying goods and not passengers and, therefore, passengers were being carried in the truck in question in violation of the terms of the policy entered into between the insurance company and the appellant No. 1 Amrit Lal, owner of the truck in question, and since there was breach of the terms of the policy, therefore, insurance company should not be held liable. Hence, the claim against the insurance company be dismissed. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (railway administration) also filed a separate reply to the claim petition and they asserted that accident took place because of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck in question and there was no fault on the part of the railway administration. Hence, the claim against the railway administration be di