1. - Since these Misc. Appeals relate to award dated 28.8.2000 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur District, Jaipur in MACT case Nos. 1407/1992, 1542/1992, 1822/92, 1903/1992, 1758/1992, 503/1993, 1759/92, 1736/92, 1408/92,1577/92/, 1704/92 and 1773/92, they are being disposed by this common judgment.

2. The facts have been set out in the impugned award and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

3. These appeals have been filed dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation and with the decision on Issues No.4 and 5 of the MACT exonerating the Insurance Companies New India Assurance Company Ltd. and United India Insurance Company from the liability of paying the compensation.

4. Brief facts as narrated in the claim petition are that on 8.3.1992 near Rampura Power House, Chomu Road, Jaipur Jeep RST 1958 and Truck N. DEL 5325 collided because of rash and negligent driving and excessive speed by both the drivers of the vehicles. It was a head on collision. Because of the collision, Sunita, Harpool, Mangal Chand; Gopal Lal, Rampal, Sardara Singh, Manju, Prem Chand, Smt. Meera, Gulab Chand. Suresh Kumar and Onad Ram died and one Ram Sahai sustained serious injuries. The respondent No.1, the driver, and respondent No.2 the owner of the truck and respondent No.4 the owner of the jeep did not file any reply to the claim petition. The respondent No.3 the Insurance Company of the truck and respondent No.5 the insurance company of the jeep contested the claim petition and filed their separate replies to the claim petitions. One injured person and legal representative of deceased persons also filed separate claim petitions. All the claim petitions were consolidated and have been decided by the same award. On the basis of the pleadings of both the sides, relevant issues were framed by the MACT. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the MACT decided issue No.1 in a manner that the accident has occurred because of rash and negligent driving on the part of the drivers of both the vehicles. Issue No.2 has also been decided in favour of the claimants. Issue No.3 has also been decided in favour of the claimants. In regard to issues 4 and 5 the respondents 3 and 5 i.e. insurance companies of both the vehicles have been exonerated from the liability of paying compensation.

5. Mr. Virendra Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that while deciding issues No.4 in a manner that the jeep driver who was having a driving license to drive light motor vehicle was not authorised to drive the vehicle involved in the accident, as it was a light transport vehicle. The MACT has grossly erred in arriving at a conclusion that the light transport vehicle is a different vehicle from a light motor vehicle. A perusal of definition given in the Motor Vehicles Act will clearly show that the light motor vehicle also includes a transport vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which is less than 7500 kg. There is no other category like light transport vehicle. In such circumstances, the driver of the jeep who was having a license to drive L.M.V. was fully authorised to drive the vehicle in question. The MACT has wrongly interpreted the provisions of section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was not a case of breach of policy condition with regard to jeep, hence its insurance company should not have been exonerated from the liability of paying compensation to the claimants. While deciding issue No.5 the MACT has held that the policy, which was produced with regard to truck involved in the accident is a forged policy and the insurance company could not have been held liable on the basis of this policy. The MACT has totally misread the facts of the case in this regard. The policy obtained by the claimants from the file of the Court of Magistrate before which the criminal case with regard to this accident was pending. In general the genuineness of policy was not in doubt, hence it was the duty of the insu