JUDGMENT :

1. Since, all the aforesaid appeals arise out of the same accident and involve common issues, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Heard Sri Manu Saxena, learned counsel for the owner of Truck No.UGR 829, Sri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company, and Sri Ram Singh and Sri Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the claimant Kallu.

3. The FAFO Nos.2112 of 2003, 132 of 2021, 365 of 2008 & 384 of 2008 have been preferred by appellant M/s. Bharat Trading Company, Kanpur, owner of Truck No.UGR 829 challenging the award dated 03.06.2003, 17.07.2012, 12.11.2007 respectively passed by the respective concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has held the negligence of the driver of Truck No.UGR 829 and further held that the truck at the time of the accident was not insured and accordingly, the Tribunal has fastened the liability upon the owner appellant to pay compensation to the extent of negligence of the driver of Truck No.UGR 829.

4. The FAFO Nos. 393 of 2008, 394 of 2008, 1603 of 2010 & 3845 of 2012 have been preferred by the appellant Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Insurer of Truck No.UHJ-9765 challenging the award dated 12.11.2007, 25.02.2010 & 1.7.07.2012 passed by the concerned Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has fixed the liability upon the Insurance Company for the negligence of the driver of Truck No.UHJ-9765 in the accident.

5. The FAFO No.3861 of 2012 has been preferred by Smt. Phoolkali Yadav, wife of Late Surya Pal Yadav, who died in the accident, for enhancement of compensation.

6. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.08.2000 Truck No.UGR 829 was driven by one Suryapal Yadav which met with an accident with Truck No.UHJ-9765 at about 7:30 a.m. It is alleged that the driver of Truck No.UGR 829 was driving the truck rashly and negligently and dashed with truck No.UHJ-9765 on which the iron rods of the length between 7 ft. to 12 ft. were loaded and some of the iron rods were hanging on the truck. In the said accident, four persons, namely, Suryapal Yadav, Shiv Baran, Chand Babu, and Shah Mohd @ Guddu died and one Dharmendra suffered injuries. Hence, five claim petitions came to be instituted, out of which four were instituted by the dependents of the four deceased and one was instituted by one Dharmendra for the injuries suffered by him.

7. It is pertinent to note that both the trucks, i.e., Truck No.UHJ-9765 and Truck no. UGR-829 are insured with the Oriental Insurance Company.

8. The owner of Truck No.UGR 829 contested the claim petition by filing a written statement contending inter alia that the truck was being driven by a person, namely, Suryapal Yadav who was holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, and the truck was duly insured. It further pleaded that if any liability arises out of the same accident upon the owner, the same shall be indemnified by the Insurance Company as the truck was validly insured with the Insurance Company.

9. This Court has perused the original record of MACP No.15 of 2000, the reading of which discloses that a joint written statement of both the vehicles, i.e., UHJ-9765 and UGR-892 was filed by the Oriental Insurance Company denying its liability on the ground that both the vehicles are not insured, and the liability of the Insurance Company is subject to the condition that both the vehicles were being plied with valid papers.

10. The Tribunal based on pleading, framed several issues.

11. On the issue of contributory negligence, i.e., issue No.1, the Tribunal found that the iron rods were hanging on truck No.UHJ-9765, and truck No.UGR-829 had rammed into truck No.UHJ-9765 from behind, therefore, the negligence of the driver of truck No. UHJ9765 is to the extent of 75 % and that of the driver of truck No.UGR-829 to the extent of 25%.

12. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal in MACP No.50 of 2001 has apportioned 50% negligence equally to the dr