VIRENDRA KUMAR MATHUR, J.

1. These Civil Misc. Appeals under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 have been filed against judgment & award dated 31.07.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in MACT Case No. 100/2001 (47/1996) (Imam Khan & another v. Akram and others) and connected claim petitions.

2. The claimant-appellants have preferred appeals for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal while the appellant-insurance company has filed appeals against liability for payment of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. All the appeals arise of same accident and involve same set of facts and therefore, all these appeals are being considered and disposed by this common judgment.

3. Briefly stated, on 11.01.1996 Smt. Hazra, Ms Salma, Smt. Guddi, Ms Gulshan, Ameer Khan, Smt. Kozi and Saleem were going from Chotila to Pali in Ambassador car No. RJ19-C-2392, which was being driven by respondent No. 1 Akram Khan. Akram was driving the car rashly & negligently and at about 4:16 PM, while he was crossing the car through unmanned Railway crossing C-21 between Rohat and Kerla, the car collided with the train coming from Jodhpur side. Due to collision, rear side of the car was hit by the train and passengers traveling in the car suffered injuries and some of them succumbed to death.

4. It was duty of respondent No. 1 driver Akram Khan to stop at the Railway crossing point and look towards left & right sides to see whether any training is coming and thereafter only he was to cross the Railway crossing. The accident was reported and an FIR No. 04/1996 was registered at Police Station, Kerla; in which after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent No. 1 driver Akram Khan.

5. Various claim petitions were filed before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali for compensation against deaths in aforesaid accident, against respondent No. 1 Akram Khan (driver), respondent No. 2 Mohammed Hanif (owner of car) and the insurance company- the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The claimants prayed for compensation of Rs. 14,25,000/- against death of Smt. Hazra in Claim Petition No. 98/2001, compensation of Rs. 5,72,000/- against death of Ms Salma in Claim Petition No. 99/2001, compensation of Rs. 19,50,000/- against death of Sultan Khan in Claim Petition No. 100/2001, compensation of Rs. 19,03,000/- against death of Smt. Guddi in Claim Petition No. 104/2001, compensation of Rs. 5,22,000/- against death of Ms Gulshan in Claim Petition No. 105/2001, compensation of Rs. 9,90,000/- against death of Master Ameer Khan in Claim Petition No. 106/2001, compensation of Rs. 9,03,000/- against death of Smt. Kauzi in Claim Petition No. 107/2001 and compensation of Rs. 20,73,000/- against death of Saleem in Claim Petition No. 108/2001; along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the respondents.

6. In the claim case, even after affording sufficient opportunity from 03.08.1999, PF and notices were not filed for summoning respondent No. 1 Akram and therefore, by order dated 20.09.2001, service on respondent No. 1 was closed. Respondent No. 2 Mohammed Hanif filed reply and contended that he was not owner of the vehicle as he has sold the car before the date of accident on 11.12.1995 to Mahant Vivekdas Guru Roopdas through Agreement to Sale and handed over possession of the car to him and therefore, he has been wrongly impleaded as party.

7. The respondent No. 3 insurance company- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. submitted reply and contended that the vehicle was insured for personal use only but at the time of the accident, the car was being used as taxi. The capacity of the car was 5 persons including driver and the insurance company has received premium only for that capacity, however, at the time of accident, 13 persons were travelling in the car, which was beyond capacity of the car and out of 13 persons, 7 person