JUDGMENT 1. - These three appeals arise out of the Award dated 28.5.85 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Doongarpur, by which the learned Judge of the Tribunal allowed the claims petitions, one filed by Ratan and the others and the another filed by Smt. Somi & Ors. As all these three appeals arise out of the same judgment and relate to the same accident, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The facts of the case are that on 7.3.80, at about 8.00 p.m., deceased Ratna, along with Thawara, Balji and Ratan, in truck No. RSY 1653, were going to Ahmedabad (Gujarat) for selling their earthen pots. They hired the aforesaid truck, in which the earthen pots prepared by them were placed. Thawara was sitting by the side of the driver while Balji, Ratan and deceased Ratna were sitting on the top of the truck. The truck met with an accident as it was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver who had consumed liquor. The truck dashed against an electric pole and over-turned. On account of this accident, Thawara, Balji and Ratan received injuries while Ratna died. Thawara, Balji and Ratan filed claim petition for the award of Rs. 13,900/- towards the loss suffered by them on account of breaking of the earthen pots etc. and, also, on account of the injuries received by them as well as the expenses incurred in their treatment. Smt. Somi (widow of deceased Ratna) and Smt. Gulabi (mother of deceased Ratna), also, filed the claim petition for the award of Rs. 3,21,300/- on various counts. It was alleged in the Claim Petition No. 30/1982 (Smt. Somi and Ors. v. Rajendra Kumar & Ors.) that deceased Ratna, on the date of his death in the accident, was aged about 22 years and was earning about Rs. 1,000/- per month and the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Onkar which resulted in the death of Ratna. Ratna was only the earning member in the family and the claimants were wholly dependent upon deceased Ratna. These claim petitions were contested by the respondents. 1,000/- per month and the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver Onkar which resulted in the death of Ratna. Ratna was only the earning member in the family and the claimants were wholly dependent upon deceased Ratna. These claim petitions were contested by the respondents. The age of deceased Ratna and the amount which he was earning, were disputed and it was stated that the accident was not the result of rash and negligent act of Onkar-the driver of the truck. All other allegations made in the claim petitions were denied. The claimants, in support of their case, examined AW 1 Thawara, AW 2 Smt. Somi (widow of Ratna), AW 3 Salt. Gulabi, AW 4 Ratanji and AW 5 Balji. The respondents, in support of their case, examined NAW 1 Devi Lal-the owner of the truck, NAW 2 Tulsi Ram and NAW 3 Onkar-the driver of the truck. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, after appreciation of the evidence, decreed both the claim petitions in part, as stated above. The insurance company filed two appeals challenging the award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal. Rajendra Kumar, claiming himself to be the owner of the truck, also, preferred an appeal which has been registered as S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 134/1985 (Rajendra Kumar v. Smt. Somi & Ors.) . Rajendra Kumar, against the award passed in the claim petition filed by Thawara & Ors. also, preferred an appeal which was registered as S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 135 of 1985 (Rajendra Kumar v. Thawara & Ors.), which was decided on 16.10.85 and the same was partly allowed and the amount awarded by the Tribunal was reduced by Rs. 400/- in each case being the value of the earthen pots. 3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the insurance company is that the liability of the insurance company is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- as a whole and the learned Judge of the Tribunal, was therefore, not justified in passing the award against the insurance company for the amount of Rs. 50,000/- in each case. 3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the insurance company is that the liability of the insurance company is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- as a whole and the learned Judge of the Tribunal, was therefore, not justified in passing the award against the insurance company for the amount of Rs. 50,000/- in each case. The contention of the learned counsel for Rajendra Kumar, on the other hand, is that the truck was never driven rashly and negligently by its driver and the award has been given without properly appreciating the evidence available on record. It has, also, been contended by him that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is highly excessive and deserves to be reduced. Mr. Suresh Shrimali appeared on behalf of the claimants, and argued for the enhancement of the compensation. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The first contention, which requires consideration is: whether the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the damages is limited only to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- as a whole in the accident or the insurance company is liable to indemnify up to Rs. 50,000/- in each case? The expression 'any one accident' appearing in Section 95(2)(a) of the Act, came-up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Motor Owners Insurance Company v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi & Ors., AIR 1981 SC 2059 and the Supreme Court held that:- "The expression "any one accident" in Section 95(2) is susceptible of the equally reasonable meanings or interpretations. If a collision occurs between a car and truck resulting in injuries to five persons, it is as much plausible to say that five persons were injured in one accident as it is to say that each of the five persons met with an accident. A bystander looking at the occurrence objectively will be right in saying that the truck and the car met with an accident or that they were concerned in one accident. On the other hand, a person looking at the occurrence subjectively, like the person who is injured in the collision, will say that he met with an accident. And so will each of the five persons who were injured. On the other hand, a person looking at the occurrence subjectively, like the person who is injured in the collision, will say that he met with an accident. And so will each of the five persons who were injured. From their point of view, which is the relevant point of view, "anyone accident" means "accident to any one". In matters involving third party risks, it is subjective considerations which must prevail and the occurrence has to be looked at from the point of view of those who are immediately affected by it. If the matter is looked at from an objective point of view the insurer's liability will be limited to Rs. 20,000/- in respect of injuries caused to all the five persons considered en bloc as a single entity. xxx xxxx xxxx A consideration of preponderating importance in a matter of this nature is not whether there was any one transaction which resulted in injuries to many but whether more than one person was injured, giving rise to more than one claim or cause of action, even if the injuries were caused in the course of one single transaction. If more than one person is injured during the course of the same transaction, each one of the persons has met with an accident. xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Considering the matter that way it is appropriate to hold; that the word `accident' is used in the expression 'any one accident' from the point of view of the various claimants, each of whom is entitled to make a separate claim for the accident suffered by him and not from the point of view of the insurer." 6. In the present case, Ratna died and claimants Thawara, Ratan and Balji received injuries and, also, suffered the loss on account of breaking's of the earthen pots. Two separate claim petitions were filed. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Motor Owners Insurance Company v. Jadavji Keshavji Modi & Ors. (Supra), the liability of the insurance company is, therefore, to indemnify the claimants to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest and cost in the case of each of the injured persons. The judgment, passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, therefore, does not require any interference. Both the appeals, filed by the insurance company, are, therefore, dismissed. 7. 50,000/- along with interest and cost in the case of each of the injured persons. The judgment, passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, therefore, does not require any interference. Both the appeals, filed by the insurance company, are, therefore, dismissed. 7. The next question, which requires consideration in the present case is: whether the accident, which resulted in the death of Ratna and injuries to the other claimants along with damages to the earthen pots, took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by. its driver NAW 3 Onkar and whether the damages/compensation award by the learned Judge of the Tribunal was adequate or excessive ? To prove the accident, the claimants have examined AW 1 Thawara, AW 4 Ratanji and AW 5 Balji, who were the persons travelling in the truck along with deceased Ratna and who received injuries. 8. AW 1 Thawara has stated that that he was travelling in the truck. The truck took petrol at Sagwara Petrol Pump. Thereafter it was proceeding from Sagwara towards Ahmedabad. The truck was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver. He was sitting by the side of the driver and Balji, Ratan and Rattu (Ratna) were sitting on the top (Dhala) of the truck. The truck dashed against an electric pole and the electric pole fell down. Rattu died in that accident and we three also received injuries. 9. Similar are the statements of AW 4 Ratanji and AW 5 Balji. 10. A lengthy cross-examination was performed on these witnesses but nothing could be elicited to make their testimony unreliable and their evidence remains unshaken. They have specifically stated that the driver of the truck had consumed liquor and was driving the truck rashly and negligently and the truck dashed against the electric pole. These three witnesses have stated what they had actually seen. While NAW 3.Onkar-the driver of the truck- has stated that he was going from Sagwara to Ahmedabad. When he was proceeding after filling the tank with the diesel, the central axle of the truck broke and he lost the control over the truck and it dashed against the electric pole. In the cross-examination this witness has admitted that he left the truck and.ran away after the accident. When he was proceeding after filling the tank with the diesel, the central axle of the truck broke and he lost the control over the truck and it dashed against the electric pole. In the cross-examination this witness has admitted that he left the truck and.ran away after the accident. If on account of the mechanical defect or failure the accident would have occurred, the driver would not have left the place of the accident leaving the truck unattended. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the accident took place on account or breakage of the axle of the truck. 11. NAW 2 Tulsi Ram, who is a retired M.T.O., has stated that he made an inspection of the truck No. RSY 1563. The right side of the front rod spring and the right side of the central bolt was broken, the front axle was drawn back, due to which the truck,over-turned. In .the cross-examination he has stated that he cannot say whether the centre bolt was broken on account of the accident or it was broken prior to it, which may result in the accident. But, however, he has admitted that the electric pole, against which the truck collided, was situated at some distance and the truck has crossed a long distance and dashed against the electric pole. 12. The aforesaid three eye witnesses, viz. AW 1 Thawara, AW 4 Ratanji and AW 5 Balji have specifically stated that the truck was driven rashly and negligently and the driver was in a drunken state, he could not control the vehicle therefore the truck dashed against the electric pole. From the evidence of these three witnesses, which is specific on the point, it has, therefore, been established that it was not on account of the axle being broken that the accident took place. In fact it was due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver, who had consumed the liquor and could not control the vehicle that the vehicle covered a long distance and dashed against the electric pole and the axle appears to have broken as a result of the accident. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has rightly considered this aspect of the case and rightly arrived-at the conclusion that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. 13. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has rightly considered this aspect of the case and rightly arrived-at the conclusion that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. 13. The next point which requires consideration is: whether the compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal is adequate or excessive? The witnesses have stated that deceased Ratna was earning Rs. 1,500/- per month, out of which he was paying Rs. 300/- per month to his wife and Rs. 500/- to his mother. The learned Judge of the Tribunal accepted the dependency of the claimants at Rs. 500/- per month and awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/- as the loss of dependency, Rs. 6,000/- as the loss of consortium and mental agony, Rs. 1,500/- as loss on account of breaking's of the earthen pots and Rs. 400/- towards the charges for hiring the truck and as such awarded a sum of Rs. 1,87,900/- as compensation. The learned Judge of the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence in this respect. After going through the evidence produced by the claimants, I am of the view that compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal cannot be said to be, in any way, inadequate or excessive. Deceased Ratna, at the relevant time, was aged about 22 years and Mst. Somi (widow of Ratna) was aged about 20 years at the time when her statement was recorded by the Tribunal. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, cannot be said to be, in any way, inadequate or excessive. 14. The appreciation of the evidence, made by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, cannot be said to be, in any way, arbitrary or unjust. The award passed by the learned Judge of the Tribunal, therefore, does not require any interference. 15. In the result, I do not find any merit in these three appeals and the same are, therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******