Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

A vehicular traffic accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Pheru Ram alias Vijay Kumar, while driving vehicle, i.e. Tata Sumo, bearing registration No. HP-16-0037, rashly and negligently on 21-1-2005, at about 3.45 p.m. at place Bharoli near Pulwahal, P.S. Rajgarh, in which two persons, namely Beeru Bahadur and Reeta Verma, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries and one Balwinder Singh and a minor child, Aman Verma, sustained injuries, has given birth to the appeals in hand, thus, I deem it proper to determine all these appeals by this judgment.

2. The legal representatives/dependents of the deceased have filed two claim petitions, being M.A.C. Petition No. 22 FTC/2 of 2005/ 06, titled as Smt. Ramkali and another v. Sh. Partap Singh Bhagnal and others (subject-matter of FAO No. 450 of 2007), before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Solan, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal-I") and MAC Petition No. 07-MAC/2 of 2006, titled as Ramesh Verma and others v. Sh. Partap Singh and others (subject- matter of FAO No. 107 of 2010), before Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal-II"), for grant of compensation, as per the break-ups given in the respective claim petitions.

3. Claimants-injured have also filed claim petitions, being MAC Petition No. 04-MAC/ 2 of 2006, titled as Aman Verma v. Sh. Partap Singh and others (subject-matter of FAO No. 106 of 2010), before Tribunal-II and M.A.C. Petition No. 8-S/2 of 2008, titled as Sh. Balwinder Singh v. Sh. Kuldeep Chauhan and others (subject-matter of FAO No. 128 of 2011), before MACT-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal-III") for grant of compensation, as per the break-ups given in the respective claim petitions.

4. The owner-insured, the driver and the insurer have resisted the claim petitions on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections.

5. Issues were framed in all the four claim petitions. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases in all the four claim petitions.

6. The Tribunals in three claim petitions, subject-matter of FAOs. No. 450 of 2007,106 and 107 of 2010, after scanning the evidence, vide separate awards of different dates, held that the insurance contract was not in force on the date of the accident and saddled the insured-owner with liability.

7. The claimants, the driver and the insurer have not questioned the said impugned awards, thus, have attained finality so far it relate to them.

8. Only the insured-owner has questioned these impugned awards by the medium of FAOs. No. 450 of 2007, 106 & 107 of 2010 on the ground that the insurance policy was in force, rather effective, on the date of the accident and the Tribunals have fallen in an error in saddling him with liability.

9. Tribunal-III in M.A.C. Petition No. 8-S/2 of 2008, subject-matter of FAO No. 128 of 2011, held that the insurance policy was effective at the relevant point of time and directed the insurer to satisfy the award.

10. The owner-insured, the driver and the claimants have not questioned the said impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them.

11. The insurer has questioned the said impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal-III has fallen in an error in saddling it with liability for the simple reason that the insurance policy was not in force at the relevant point of time, i.e. the date of accident.

12. Neither the claimants nor the respondents in the claim petitions, i.e. the driver, the owner-insured and the insurer have questioned the adequacy of compensation or the factum of rashness or negligence. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunals on the said issues have attained finality.

13. The only question to be answered in these appeals is - whether the insurance contract was effective on the date of the accid