Honble Prakash Krishna, J.—These are four connected appeals and were heard together and are being disposed by a common judgment.

2. Three claim petitions being M.V. Claim No. 83 of 1974: Jagat Narain Nigam v. Gauri Shanker Paliwal and others, M.V. Claim No. 84 of 1974: Narendra Kumar v. Gauri Shanker Paliwal and others and M.V. Claim No. 85 of 1974: Union of India v. Shri Gauri Shanker Paliwal and others, were filed and they were tried together. All these claim petitions arose on account of an accident which took place on 25th of April, 1974 at about 6.30 p.m. near village Paurhi at a distance of about 28 kilometers from Mathura. Shri Jagat Narain Nigam, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Narendra Kumar, Excise Inspector received serious injuries and Jeep No. U.P.C. 7307 belonging to the Central Excise Department of Government of India was damaged. In Claim Petition Nos. 83 and 84 of 1974 damages were claimed for bodily injuries received by the petitioners while in claim petition No. 85 of 1974 the damages for damage caused to the Government vehicle as a result of accident was claimed. Shri Gauri Shanker Paliwal who was respondent No. 1 in all the above three claim petitions was the owner of Jeep No. U.S.Q. 3919 which caused accident in question. The said Jeep was coming from Agra side in a zigzag manner and was being driven rashly and negligently as pleaded by the petitioners of the claim petitions and also found by the Tribunal. The said Jeep dashed against the Jeep No. U.P.C. 7307 in which the claimants were travelling. It is not necessary for the purposes of disposal of these appeals to notice the other facts inasmuch as only two questions, one common in all the appeals and another relating to the enhancement of compensation involved in First Appeal From Order No. 120 of 1978 have been mooted by the learned Counsel for the parties. The case of Gauri Shanker Paliwal before the Tribunal was that he was not owner of Jeep U.S.Q. 3919 on the date on which the accident took place. The said vehicle was owned by M/s. Chandmal and Ramesh Chand of District Mainpuri on the date of accident. The vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company namely National Insurance Company and the insurance policy was subsisting on the date of the accident. It was obtained on 14th of February, 1974 in the name of Chandmal and Ramesh Chand for a period of one year. The said Jeep was transferred by Chandmal to Smt. Phoolwati and Rewati Kunwar. It was subsequently sold by the said three owners to Gauri Shankar Paliwal who is the appellant in the three appeals and was respondent No. 1 in the claim petitions prior to 21st of March, 1974.

3. Number of issues were framed by the Claims Tribunal. Issue No. 3 was to the effect—whether Insurance Company, the respondent No. 2 is not liable as alleged in para 17 of the written statement. The contention of the Insurance Company was that on the date of the accident, the present appellant namely Gauri Shanker Paliwal was not insured as the Jeep had been transferred to Gauri Shanker Paliwal prior to the date of the accident. In other words, it was pleaded by the Insurance Company that the insured persons were Chandmal, Ramesh Chandra and since they ceased to be owner prior to the date of accident, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the subsequent owner namely Shri Gauri Shanker Paliwal. The Tribunal by its common judgment dated 9th of November, 1977 allowed all three claim petitions and awarded a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh to Shri J.N. Nigam, Rs. 5,000/- to Shri N.K. Khanna and Rs. 2,000/- to the Union of India, with costs. However, it has exempted the Insurance Company to pay the aforesaid amounts and dismissed the claim petitions against the Insurance Company. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and award the present appeals have been filed.

4. Although in memo of appeal number of grounds have been raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, but during the course of argument only