1. - These two appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 19th September, 1996 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby he awarded compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,88,000/- in favour of the respondent-claimants in Appeal No. 110/97 (Original M.A.C.T. Case No. 114/93) and in Appeal No. 38/97 (Original M.A.C.T. Case No. 384/92). By this common judgment, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 67,000/- compensation in favour of the claimant in Original M.A.C.T. Case No. 71/93 alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of application till the date of realisation. Since both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and law and facts, are common, therefore, I decide these appeals by common judgment.

2. Brief facts of the case out of which these appeals have arisen, are that on 10th September, 1992 at about 3.00 P.M., deceased Altaf Hussain, Bhanwarlal Bogoria and Om Prakash were going on TVS Moped from College Campus to hostel. At that time, a Metador No. RNY-346 came from opposite direction, which was driven by its driver Bhawani Shanker at a great speed with rashly and negligently. The Metador hit the Moped and its riders. After having dashed against the Moped, it was dragged about 20-25 feets along with Metador, resulting thereby, the Moped rider Altaf Hussain and pillion riders Bhanwarlal and Om Prakash sustained severe injuries. Altaf Hussain and Bhanwarlal succumbed injuries instantaneously. However, Om Prakash was taken to Hospital in seriously injured condition.

3. The parents of Altaf Hussain, who are legal representatives of deceased filed a claim petition No. 384/92 claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 10,12,000/- and the Legal representatives of deceased Bhanwarlal filed a claim petition No. 114/93 claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 18,39,000/- against respondents No. 7, 8 and appellant-insurer. A similar claim petition No. 71/93 was also filed by injured Om Prakash claiming compensation for a sum of Rs. 3,13,000/-.

4. Notice of the claim petitions served upon the respondents who filed the respective statements. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed as many as four issues in each claim petition. The issues were common. By the judgment impugned, the Tribunal decided issues No. 1 in favour of the claimants therein and against respondents No. 7, 8 and the appellant-insurer and held that the aforesaid accident was as a result of driving of Metador rashly and negligently by its driver respondent No. 7. Due to this accident, Altaf Hussain and Bhanwalal succumbed injuries and Om Prakash sustained serious injuries. While deciding issue No. 2 the Tribunal assessed compensation as Rs. 1,88,000/- each in Claim Case No. 384/92 and Claim Case No. 114/93 and Rs. 67,000/- in Claim Case No. 71/93. Issue No. 3 relates to the objections and pleas raised by the insurer. This issue was framed at the instance of the insurer and therefore, the burden of proof was on the appellant-insurer. The appellant-insurer has not led any evidence to prove this issue and accordingly, this issue was decided against the appellant-insurer.

5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed in Claims Case No. 384/92 and 114/93 the appellant-insurer filed the present appeal. However, the award passed in Claim Case No. 71/93 has not been challenged.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer and learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants and perused the record of the case.

7. The appellant-insurer has challenged in these appeals the factum of accident, issue relating to rash and negligence of the driver respondent No. 7 and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent claimants. The appellant-insurer has also challenged the finding on issue No. 3.

8. Before the Tribunal, the driver and owner of the vehicle i.e. respondents No. 7 and 8 respectively filed their joint written sta