JUDGMENT

B.N. Mahapatra, J.

1. This batch of appeals has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, 'the Act') challenging a common award dated 4.2.2006 passed in MAC Case Nos. 116/179 of 2002/1995, 4/171 of 1997/1995, 142/170 of 1997/1995, 157/177 of 2000/1995, 164/169 of 1997/1995, 29/174 of 1997/1995, 17/182 of 2001/1995, 27/164 of 2001/1995, 18/183 of 2001/1995, 67/180 of 1999/1995 and 57/181 of 2000/1995. Since, the above M.A.C. cases were filed out of the same accident by different claimants under Section 166 of the Act and they were disposed of by a common award dated 4.2.2006 and the grounds taken in all the appeals are similar, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The claimants' case in a nutshell is that on 12.6.1995 the deceased persons and the injured were returning to their respective homes in a trekker bearing Registration No. OR-01-9505 along with the groom after attending a marriage. While they were coming from village Jalada to village Bari on N.H.B. at about 5.50 A.M. in front of Matiapada Dhaba hotel an Truck bearing registration No. AP-16T-6845 coming from the opposite direction hit the Trekker resulting in death of some of the occupants of the Trekker and injuries to several others. According to the claimants, the Truck driver was rash and negligent and he was responsible for the accident. Thereafter Simulia P.S. Case No. 44 of 1995 was registered in connection with the above accident. With these averments, the claim petitions were filed before the learned Tribunal.

2. Opposite party No. 2-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.(in MAC No. 116/179 of 2002/1995) filed written statement before the learned Tribunal challenging the maintainability of the cases. It was pleaded that there was no such accident and the Truck in question had not caused any accident. It was also pleaded that the driver of the offending Truck had no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Their specific case is that the driver of the offending Trekker lost his control over the vehicle as a result of which the Trekker capsized and the deceased persons died and several persons became injured in that accident.

3. Opp. party No. 3-National Insurance Com. Ltd., (in MAC No. 116/179 of 2002/1995), which is the insurer of the offending Trekker filed a separate written statement. According to opp. party No. 3, the Trekker driver was not responsible for the accident and as such opp. party No. 3 is not liable to pay the compensation. It had also taken the plea that the driver of the trekker had no valid driving licence at the time of accident. Opp. party Nos. 1 and 4, who are the owners of the Truck and Trekker respectively had neither appeared nor filed any written statement before the court below and as such the claim petitions were heard ex parte against opp. party Nos. 1 and 4.

4. On the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues. Taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, learned Tribunal held that it was the offending Truck which caused accident resulting the death of the deceased persons in question and injuries to Ramamani Sethi-P.W.1 in MAC Case No. 57/181 of 2000/1995 and there was valid driving licence of the driver of the offending Trekker. Thus learned Tribunal held that the offending truck had caused the accident and the driver of the Truck is responsible for it and the Trekker driver was not at fault. Opp. party No. 3-National Insurance Company who is the insurer of the trekker is not liable to pay the compensation. Opp. party No. 2-Oriental Insurance Company being the insurer of the offending truck is liable to pay the compensation separately to all the claimants as per the calculation made in the order of the learned Tribunal.

5. Mr. P. Ray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants submitted that although the specific plea was canvassed before the Tribunal that the driver of the truck insured with the appellant did not produc