By the Court.—This First Appeal From Order has been filed by the appellant National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Divisional Manager Branch Office 1566/3 Church Road, Kashmiri Gate Delhi through Assistant Manager, National Insurance Company 25, M.G. Marg, Allahabad against the judgment and award dated 26.7.2006 passed by Additional District and Session Judge Court No. 7 (M.A.C.T.) Moradabad in M.A.C.T. Case No. 45 of 2003 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,70,856/- to the claimants alongwith 6% interest from the date of institution of claim petition to the claimant as per the award. Initially the awarded amount is to be paid by the National Insurance Company appellant (with a right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (O.P. No. 2) Ramesh Kumar S/o Jasram. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed cross appeal/cross objection No. 172284 of 2012.

2. Facts in brief for filing th present appeal are as follows:

3. As per the facts mentioned in the impugned judgment and award dated 26.7.2006, deceased Abdul Rehma Khan was posted as police constable in U.P. Police at Police Station Saidnagli, District - J.P. Nagar. On 8.11.2002 he was going on tempo truck chesis No. T.53007110 G-02 with other police employees on Government duty. Offending vehicle No. D.L.1-L.7222 was being driven very rashly and negligently by its driver. It hit the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling within the jurisdiction of village Lakhan, Pukka Road, Rashtriya Marg 24, police station Pilkhawan, District Ghziabad at about 12 in the night in which Abdul Rehman Khan and two other persons sustained injuries and lost their lives. Deceased Abdul Rehman Khan was a police employee and he was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 6399/- per month. He was 33 years old at the time of alleged accident. The petitioners being his legal heirs preferred this claim petition before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. Opposite party No. 2 is the owner of vehicle No. D.L.1 L.D./7222 Tata 709. Rameshwar Singh, opposite party No. 3 was the driver of the aforesaid vehicle. Suneel Kumar was the owner of vehicle, chesis No. 57007110 J-02 tempo truck engine No. D-14005783, vehicle No. D.L.1 LD/7222 was insured with opposite party No. 1, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The tempo truck chesis was insured through New India Insurance Co. Ltd opposite party No. 5. As per version of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 vehicle No. DL.1L.D./7222 was insured through National Insurance Co. Ltd. Opposite party No. 2 at the relevant time of accident and the National Insurance Co. was impleaded in the petition only on 17.12.2004. The claimant claimed Rs. 21/-lacs as compensation.

4. Written statement was filed on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. They denied all the averment made in the petition and also stated in additional pleas that vehicle No. 709 1L.D./7222 was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. from 18.10.2002 to 17.10.2003. They further stated that as per the First Information Report and witnesses alleged accident took place from the vehicle No. Tata 407 DL, 1 L-7722 whereas opposite party Ramesh Kumar is owner of vehicle No. Tata 709 D.L. 1.D. 7222. Hence, the answering opposite parties have been unnecessarily impleaded in this petition. Opposite party No. 3 Rameshwar Singh who was driver of vehicle had valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident. In fact on the fateful day his vehicle was standing by side of the road due to puncture of tyre. Sugar bags were loaded on it. Driver and cleaner had gone for repairing of puncture. Meanwhile, a vehicle No. H.P.10g-1784 which was driven by its driver rashly and negligently hit by some unknown person. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 and their vehicle had no concern with the alleged accident.

5. Written statement also filed by opposite party No. 1, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. which also denied the averment made in the petition and they submitted that though vehicle in question was insured by them