1. - These three appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 23.2.1995 decreeing the three claim petitions for different amounts, and holding the Insurer also jointly and severely liable for the entire amount. All the three claim petitions arise out of the same accident, as all the victims were passengers in the same jeep, and as such these appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.7.1992 deceased Padma Ram, Chaina Ram, and the injured Hamu Ram, were travelling in Jonga Jeep No. RSF-8247, being driven by the respondent Neemb Singh, during the night while going on the road leading from Barmer to Jaisalmer about 29 kms. from Bariyada towards Jaisalmer, the accident occurred as a result of fast, and negligent driving of the Jeep, resulting into death of two deceased, and injuries to the third claimant.

3. The legal representatives of the deceased so also the injured filed 15 three separate claim petitions.

4. Neemb Singh and Insurance Company filed reply in all the three claim petitions, while Narpat Singh respondent filed reply only in two claim petitions having been filed by Hamu Ram and Chhothi Devi etc., and did not file any reply in claim petition filed by Varju.

5. The stand taken by Narpat Singh is that he had already sold away the vehicle to Neemb Singh before accident, and had delivered a duly signed sale letter to him, and as such he is not liable for any compensation. It was also pleaded that after the accident it was Neemb Singh who obtained the delivery of the vehicle from the Court projecting himself to be the owner.

6. Neemb Singh came forward with the plea of having driven the vehicle with care and caution, and with slow speed. In para 8 he denied to have caused any accident. Then in other paras he maintained the plea of absence of any negligence, and therefore, no liability to be accruing against him, or the owner. The claim was also contended to be highly exaggerated.

7. Insurance Company admitted the vehicle to be insured with it, and contended that since information of transfer was not given to the Insurer, it is not liable. The other plea taken was that until and unless the vehicle is shown to have been plied under and in accordance with the legal valid permit, during the course of employment, and under the direction of the owner of the vehicle by a valid license holder, the Insurer cannot be held liable. Yet another important plea taken was that the vehicle was insured for private use only, while at the time of accident it was being used as a taxi, and therefore, also the Insurance Company is not liable. The next plea taken was that the vehicle was overloaded with passengers, which also amounts to breach of the policy conditions.

8. The learned trial Court framed six issues in all the claim petitions. All the three claim petitions were separately tried so far as the evidence of the claimants is concerned, however, since no evidence was led by the defendant Narpat Singh and Neemb Singh, and the Insurance Company examined NAW 1 R.R. Munot, whose statements were recorded in Claim Petition No. 74 of 1992, and with consent of the parties, the copy of his statement was taken on record in the other two claim petitions also. After completing the trial the learned trial Court decreed the claim petitions as above.

9. While deciding the claim petitions, the learned Trial Court considered the evidence of all the five witnesses, whose statements were recorded in different claim petitions (together), and while deciding issue No. 1 it was held that Neemb Singh had driven the vehicle negligently, which results into accident causing death of Padma Ram and Chaina Ram. so also causing 10 injuries to Hamu Ram, in the opinion of the learned trial Court nothing could be elicited in the cross-examination of the witnesses, and thus issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimants. While deciding issue No. 2 considering the evidence o