( 1. ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of M. A. Nos. 1836, 1855, 1856, 2215, 2300, 2349 and 2377 of 2005 as all the claim cases are arising out of one accident and has been disposed of by common award. Apart from this, in all the cases parties are one and the same except the claimant. So far as M. A. Nos. 2215, 2300, 2377 and 2349 of 2005 are concerned, all the appeals are filed by claimants, while m. A. Nos. 1711, 1836, 1855 and 1856 of 2005, are concerned, all the appeals are filed by the owner.

( 2. ) SHORT facts of the case are that in a vehicular accident which took place on 20. 1. 1999 between bus bearing registration no. GJ 8-U 1110 and truck bearing registration No. GJ 17-X 3435 Bhaskarrao, jayashri, Babulal and Vimlabai died. Their legal representatives filed the claim case wherein it was alleged that the deceased persons were travelling in the bus, at the relevant time which was going from Indore to Ahmedabad. It was alleged that at the relevant time, the offending bus was being driven by respondent No. 3, owned by the appellant and insured with respondent No. 4. It was further alleged that the offending truck with whom the bus met with an accident was owned by the respondent No. 5, driven by respondent No. 6 and insured with respondent No. 7. It was alleged that the offending bus was driven rashly and negligently with the result offending bus dashed offending truck which was stationed on the roadside and in the said accident bhaskarrao, Jayashri, Babulal and Vimlabai died. The case was contested by respondent Nos. 4 and 7 on various grounds. Respondent No. 4 also took the plea that the offending bus was got insured with respondent No. 4 at about 4 p. m. while the accident took place at about 5 a. m. It was alleged that since the vehicle was not insured at the relevant time, therefore, the respondent No. 4 is not liable for payment of compensation.

( 3. ) AFTER framing of all the issues and recording of evidence, the learned Tribunal allowed all the claim cases and awarded compensation in each of the claim case against the appellant and respondent No. 3 and exonerated respondent Nos. 4 to 7. Respondent No. 4 was exonerated on the ground that offending bus was not insured with respondent No. 4 at the relevant time. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were exonerated on the ground that as per pleadings and also on the basis of evidence, it is amply proved that driver of the offending bus of whose rash and negligent driving the accident occurred, hence the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 cannot be held liable for the payment of compensation. Being aggrieved by the inadequacy of the amount awarded and exoneration of respondent Nos. 4 to 7, all the claimants have filed the appeal, while being aggrieved by the exoneration of respondent No. 4, appellant the owner of the bus have also filed the appeal. Particulars including the amount awarded in all the cases are as under:

( 4. ) IN M. A. Nos. 2377 and 2300 of 2005, appellants are the claimants while in M. A. Nos. 1711 and 1836 of 2005, the appellant is owner of the offending bus. Thus, two appeals are by claimants and two appeals are by owner. In each of the claim case the break-up of amount awarded is as under:

( 5. ) MR. Vinay Vijaywargiya, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal committed error in exonerating the respondent No. 4 on the ground that vehicle was not insured at the relevant time. Learned counsel submits that from perusal of the policy which is Exh. D1 it is evident that on the date of accident the offending bus was insured from 00. 00 hours. It is submitted that the accident took place at 5 a. m. on 20. 1. 1999 and the offending vehicle was insured from 12 p. m. from the intervening night of 19/20. 1. 1999, therefore, at the relevant time the bus was duly insured and there was no justification on the part of learned Tribunal in exonerating respondent No. 4.

( 6. ) THE learned counsel further submits that even if it is assumed that the