JUDGMENT Lokesimar Singh Panta, J.—All the 24 appeals and Cross-objections are disposed of by this common judgment, as the claims preferred by the respective claimants arise from one and the same accident which occurred on July 5, 1983 in which 10 persons died and 14 were injured. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I) Solan and Sirmour Districts at Nahan delivered common award on 30-6 1984. 2. The facts giving rise to the claim petitions are as follows : On July 5, 1983 at about 830 a.m. several persons boarded the truck bearing registration No. UTL-6652 belonging to M/s Patel Engineering Company Ltd. at Kalawar. The said truck was on its way to Dak Pathar, The truck overturned near a place known Sansar Dhara. Out of the several passengers who were travelling in the truck, Dharam Singh, Mundi Rain, Chandnu, Khushi Ram, Guman Singh, Madan Singh, Indar Singh, Rangi Lal, Dharam Singh and Dhanu Ram died instantaneously while Surat Singh and Basti Ram sustained injuries. At the time of accident Kartar Singh (respondent) was driver of the truck and it was insured with the United India Insurance Company. Claims have been preferred either by the legal representatives of the deceased or by the injured for themselves for different amounts. The case of the claimants is that driver Kartar Singh was driving the truck rashly and negligently and at an excessive speed due to which it became uncontrollable and dashed against a tree as a result of which it overturned and the passengers fell into a Khud adjoining the main road. Ten persons out of 35 died on the spot and injured were shifted to Lemen Hospital (Christian Medical Hospital) Harbertpur (UP ). They have also stated that the occupants were travelling by this truck against the payment of double travelling charges collected by the driver and conductor to the knowledge of the officers of M/s. Patel Engineering Company Limited. 3. The Patel Engineering Company resisted the claim of the petitioners in the written statement. It is admitted that the truck was insured with the Company. The allegation of rash and negligent driving of the truck by the driver is denied It is pleaded that the accident took place due to the sudden mechanical breakdown i.e. latent defect in the vehicle, at the relevant time. It is admitted that the truck was insured with the Company. The allegation of rash and negligent driving of the truck by the driver is denied It is pleaded that the accident took place due to the sudden mechanical breakdown i.e. latent defect in the vehicle, at the relevant time. The Check Nut bolts had suddenly opened resulting in the breaking of left rear side bearing and thus, opening of wheel. The amount claimed was also contested. Additional plea was taken that the occupants were trespassers in the truck. There were standing instructions to the drivers of the M/s. Patel Engineering Company not to give lift in the truck to any stranger. The employees of the Company could only be given lift and that also with the permission of the Incharge of the site. 4. The driver of the truck Kartar Singh filed his written statements answering all the petitions He admitted the accident but denied that he drove the truck in a rash and negligent manner. He mostly adopted the defence raised by the Insurance Company, Further he stated that on 5th July, 1983, he was coming from Kalawar with 4/5 employees of the Company, when on the way he was stopped by 30 to 35 persons who wanted lift as they stated that they wore going to Paonta to attend the case in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Assistant Collector 1st Grade. On showing his inability they became furious and threatened him with dire consequences. They entered the truck forcibly and under threat he had to drive the vehicle. According to his statement had he not acceded to their order, they would have harmed him bodily and as such they were trespassers. The Insurance Company resisted the claim of all the petitions. Their defence was that the vehicle was being plied under private carrier permit and was a goods vehicle and the same was not covered for carrying passengers under the Policy of the Insurance and the permit. It was also alleged that the insured has unilaterally altered the risk by carrying passengers in a private carrier goods vehicle. The total liability of the Company was not more than Rs 1,50,000 in any case. The amount of compensation claimed was also contested. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on November 22, 1983 settled the following issues :— 1. The total liability of the Company was not more than Rs 1,50,000 in any case. The amount of compensation claimed was also contested. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on November 22, 1983 settled the following issues :— 1. Whether the deceased/injured was travelling as unauthorised passenger in the vehicle aforesaid insured with respondent No. 4? OPR-4. 2. In case issue No. 1 is decided in affirmative, whether the respondent No. 4 is not liable to pay compensation claimed ? OPR-4. 3. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder of parties as alleged in reply of respondent No. 4 ? OPR-4. 4. Whether the liability of insurance company does not exceed Rs. 1,50,000 in case of accident of several persons including injured and expired therein as alleged in para 31 of the reply ? OPR-4. 5. Whether the petitioners are the dependants entitled to claim compensation under section HO of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939? OPP. 6. Whether the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3, Kartar Singh, in respect of Truck bearing registration No. UTL-6652 belonging to respondents No. 1 and 2 ? OPP. 7. If issues No. 5 and 6 are decided in favour of the petitioners to what amount of compensation they are entitled to and to what extent and in what proportion and from whom ? OPP. 8. Whether the deceased was illegal occupant termed as trespasser in reply of respondent No. 3 ? OPR 3, 9. Whether the accident occurred due to the latent defect in the vehicle as alleged in reply of respondents No. ! to 3 ? OPR. 10. Whether the respondent No. 3 boarded the vehicle i.e. deceased and injured in the above said truck without authority of employers, respondents No, 1 and 2, If so what is its effect ? OPR 1 and 2. 10-A. Whether the Insurance Company respondent No, 4 is not liable for payment of compensation because of the vehicle No. UTL-6652 involved in the accident being a private carrier and not covered under the policy of Insurance to carry passengers, as alleged ? OPR-4. 10-B. In case petitioners are held entitled to the payment of compensation, whether Insurance Company respondent No. 4 is not liable to pay full and part thereof under sections 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act ? OPR-4. 10-B. In case petitioners are held entitled to the payment of compensation, whether Insurance Company respondent No. 4 is not liable to pay full and part thereof under sections 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act ? OPR-4 The parties led evidence and after hearing them, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal answered all the issues in favour of the claimants and against the appellant-Company. The conclusions were as follows :— 1. That the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by driver Kartar Singh. 2. That the passengers were not unauthorised or illegal occupants of the truck but they were carried in the vehicle for hire and reward and the said fact was within the knowledge of M/s Patel Engineering Company Ltd. who failed to take effective steps. 3. That the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1.50 lacs in toto in respect of this accident irrespective of the number of persons involved in the accident. The claimants in each case were entitled to compensation to be paid by the Insurance Company and owner of the truck jointly and severally. 6. The United India Insurance Company felt aggrieved by the judgment and hence had filed First Appeal Nos. 176 of 1984, 177 of 1984, 180 of l984, 182 of l984, 183 of 1984, 184 of l984, 185 of 1984, 186 of 1984, 187 of 1984, 188 of 1984, 191 of 198 and 192 of 1984. 7. M/s. Patel Engineering Company Ltd. feeling aggrieved against the award of compensation filed First Appeal Nos. 195 of 1984,196 of 1984, 197 of 1984, 198 of 1984, 199 of 1984, 200 of 1984, 201 of 1984, 202 of 1984, 203 of 1984, 204 of 1984, 205 of 198 4 and 221 of 1981 respectively. The claimants felt not satisfied with the compensation awarded, have also filed cross-objections in some cases, 8. In the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company three grounds were raised. The claimants felt not satisfied with the compensation awarded, have also filed cross-objections in some cases, 8. In the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company three grounds were raised. According to it, the vehicle being a private carrier was being plied for hire and reward for carrying passengers, secondly the vehicle was being driven by flagrant violation of the terms of the permit which did not authorise the truck to be plied in Himachal Pradesh, thirdly, the liability in respect of such passengers carried in the vehicle at the time of accident was not covered under the Insurance, Policy and fourthly that in fact 10 per sons died in the accident and as such the Insurance Company could not be made liable beyond Rs, 15,000 per head. 9. In support of the grounds raised by the Insurance Company, Shri Chhabil Dass learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon 1977 ACJ 343, Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi and othes v. M/s. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Co and another ; 1987 ACJ 788, Joginder Singh v. Pushpa Rani and others; 1987 ACJ 905, Omnna and others v. Davind and others ; 19