JUDGMENT 1. The present appeals are filed challenging the common judgment and award dated 23.3.1993 passed by the Member, M.A.C. Tribunal, Aurangabad in M.A.C. Petition Nos.35 of 1988 and 36 of 1988. The present respondent Nos.1 and 2 are original claimants. Respondent No.3 is the Insurance Company. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under. The claim petition Nos. 35 of 1988 was filed by the claimants seeking compensation amount in respect of the injuries and permanent disability sustained by them in the accident, which took place on 27.2.1987 when they were travelling by one Matador bearing registration No. MWP 1620 from Waki Phata towards Kannad. Whereas the claim petition No.36 of 1988 was filed by the claimants contending that their daughter Muktabai, aged 9 years, died in the said accident while travelling by said Matador. Both the claim petitions arose out of the same accident. It is the contention of the claimants that respondent No.1 was driving the said matador in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. When the matador was ascending the ghat on the way to Kannad, the driver of the matador could not control the vehicle and the vehicle started coming reverse, turtled and met with the accident. Claimant No.2 in claim petition No. 35 of 1988 had lost her teeth and also sustained injuries on her face. She was under treatment for about three months. Similarly, claimant No.1 also sustained injuries and his left hand had also fractured. The police had lodged the complaint against appellant No.1 for the said incident. The injured were taken to the hospital where they were under treatment. The vehicle, according to the claimants, was insured with respondent No.3. Therefore, it was contended by the claimants that respondent No.3 was also liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. The claim petitions were resisted by the appellants on the grounds that the driver of the vehicle had allowed the claimants to travel by the matador out of sympathy, as the claimants had requested him to allow them to travel as their relatives was seriously ill and they were required to go urgently to Kannad. Ownership of the vehicle is not disputed. The vehicle, according to appellant No.1 and 2, was insured with respondent No.3 at the relevant time. Ownership of the vehicle is not disputed. The vehicle, according to appellant No.1 and 2, was insured with respondent No.3 at the relevant time. It is further contended that appellant No.2 who is owner of the vehicle had given instructions to his driver not to allow any passenger to travel by the vehicle and the driver on his own accord had allowed the passengers to travel as there was no bus for them to travel towards Kannad. The driver of the matador had allowed the passengers to travel at his risk. The appellant No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. Respondent No.3 Insurance company had also resisted the claim petition by filing its say at Exh.35. According to the insurance company, the passengers are not allowed to travel in the matador which was meant for goods carriage as per the terms and conditions of the policy and the appellants were not authorised to carry the passengers. Thus, it was submitted that the insurer is not liable to pay the amount of compensation to the appellants, in view of the provisions of clause II of Section 95(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 3. On the pleading of the parties, the tribunal framed necessary issues and after proper appreciation of the evidence and after hearing respective parties, by detailed reasons has allowed both the petitions. In case of claim petition No. 35 of 1988, it was directed to the appellants herein to deposit an amount of Rs.12,500/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petitions i.e. from 5.4.1988 till realisation of the compensation amount. Whereas in case of claim petition No. 36 of 1988 it was directed to the appellants to deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 5.4.1988. 4. The appellant No.2 was further directed to deposit an amount of Rs.15,000/- payable to respondent No.3 towards reimbursement of amount of interim relief paid by respondent No.3 to the claimants. This appeals were admitted by this court on 28.7.1994. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and other passengers were taken in the vehicle at their request. There was no negligence on the part of the driver. This appeals were admitted by this court on 28.7.1994. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and other passengers were taken in the vehicle at their request. There was no negligence on the part of the driver. It was further submitted that no certificate of injuries were filed on record by the claimants though the tribunal has recorded the findings that the case is of vicarious liability even then the owner is held liable. It was contended that, in addition to the grounds taken in appeal, the arguments advanced herein above should be taken into consideration and the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal be quashed and set aside. 6. None appeared for the original claimants. Mr. Upadhye, appeared for respondent No.3 and submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is perfectly justified in law. He submitted that vehicle in question was permitted only to carry the goods and not the passengers. At the relevant time, the driver of the vehicle allowed 20 to 22 passengers to travel. There was no sitting arrangement in the vehicle. It was the mistake of the driver. There was negligence in driving the vehicle and therefore, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the amount for no fault liability. He further submitted that there is reference to his written argument in the judgment of the Tribunal which may be taken into consideration while disposing of these appeals. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties at length. The Tribunal has delivered a common judgment in both the claim petitions i.e. M.A.C.P. Nos.35 of 1988 and 36 of 1988. The Tribunal has framed the issues and recorded the reasons in detail. 8. Perusal of the record shows that the claimants in claim petition No. 35 of 1988 have examined the witnesses including the claimant No.2 Janabai and father of claimant No.1 viz. Eknath. The evidence of Eknath Uttamrao Lone shows that on 27.2.1987 in the evening he was present at Waki Phata alongwith his father, mother, wife and daughter and several others for going to Kannad. He further stated that one Tempo bearing No. MWP 1620 came there. He alongwith his relatives boarded in the said tempo by paying the amount as told by the driver. He further deposed that 20 to 22 persons were travelling in the matador. He further stated that one Tempo bearing No. MWP 1620 came there. He alongwith his relatives boarded in the said tempo by paying the amount as told by the driver. He further deposed that 20 to 22 persons were travelling in the matador. The vehicle was being driven by the driver in rash and negligent manner. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, the vehicle while ascending the Ghat of Karanjkheda started coming in reverse. He jumped from the vehicle. The vehicle turtled and fell down. His brother’s daughter Muktabai died in the accident. His wife sustained injuries on her face and her three teeth fell down and another teeth had became loose. She also sustained injuries on her forehead. There was disfiguration of her face due to the injuries. His son Mohan has also sustained injuries and fracture to his left hand. His parents has also sustained injuries in the said accident. Eknath has further stated that owner and driver of the vehicle were present in the vehicle at the time of the accident. It was further stated that the injured were hospitalised for treatment, his wife and parents were taking treatment for about 2/3 months. 9. He further stated that his son was studying in 4th standard at the time of incident. He was required to spend an amount of Rs.15,000 to 20,000/- for the treatment of his son and wife. 10. Evidence of Janabai shows that she was also travelling in the tempo alongwith others and when the vehicle ascending the Ghat of Karanjkheda it had started coming to reverse side. She also sustained injuries on her forehead and near left eyebrow. Stitches were given on vision of her left eye. Her three teeth from the upper jaw had fell down due to blow on her face. One teeth is moving. She was unconscious for 5/6 days after the incident. 11. One more witness Kisan Baburao Lone deposed that he was travelling in the vehicle alongwith the others. He deposed that near the vehicle had met with the accident while ascending the ghat as the driver of the vehicle lost his control and the matador came reverse upto 40 feet and then over turned. He further deposed that appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were present in the vehicle at the time of accident. He deposed that near the vehicle had met with the accident while ascending the ghat as the driver of the vehicle lost his control and the matador came reverse upto 40 feet and then over turned. He further deposed that appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were present in the vehicle at the time of accident. In presence of witness Mohan Rajput panchnama regarding scene of offence was conducted by the police. 12. In claim petition No.36 of 1988, in his evidence, witness Rambhau Lone has stated that his daughter was travelling in the Matador at the time of incident and he had gone to the place of incident immediately upon knowing about the accident. He came to know that his daughter was taken to Hospital at Pishor for treatment and on reaching there he learnt about her death. 13. Copy of panchanama regarding scene of offence Exh.32, copy of F.I.R. Exh.33, Copy of panchanama regarding scene of offence at Exh.74, accident report is at Exh.76. Insurance policy at Exh.80 and permanent disability certificate in respect of the claimant Janabai is at Exh.84 are produced by the claimants on record in claim petition No.35 of 1988. 14. After going through the evidence and statement of the witnesses one thing is clear provided that the whether the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and the driver had lost control over the vehicle while ascending the Ghat near village Karanjkheda, when the vehicle came in reverse and overturned. One Muktabai died on the spot and others sustained severe injuries. The appellants have not adduced cogent evidence to show that the vehicle met with an accident on account of mechanical defect etc. 15. Admittedly, the vehicle was goods carriage and there was no permit to carry the passengers. Allowing 20 to 22 passengers without sitting arrangement in the vehicle, which was for goods carriage, itself amounts to illegality. The driver and owner ought not have allowed to board the passengers when admittedly the permit of the vehicle was for goods carriage. Transporting of the passengers was illegal and contrary to the terms and conditions of the permit. The vehicle was carrying near about 20 to 22 persons in a matador wherein there was no sitting arrangement for the passengers. 16. It is an admitted position that there was a death of Muktabai in the said accident. Janabai has sustained injuries. Transporting of the passengers was illegal and contrary to the terms and conditions of the permit. The vehicle was carrying near about 20 to 22 persons in a matador wherein there was no sitting arrangement for the passengers. 16. It is an admitted position that there was a death of Muktabai in the said accident. Janabai has sustained injuries. She also lost her teeth. A medical certificate Exh.84 clearly goes to show that she sustained permanent disability to the extent of 1%. Due to loosing of teeth in young age, the face appears to be disfigured and considering the nature of the injuries Janabai was entitled for the compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in granting the compensation of Rs.20,000/- in favour of the claimants Janabai. 17. In view of the above discussion, the Tribunal was justified in directing the appellants to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.12500/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition to the claimants. 18. So far as the claim petition No.36 of 1988 is concerned, the claimants lost their daughter aged of 9 years. The girl was studying in 4th standard. Considering the age of the girl the Tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for compensation of amount of Rs.40,000/- from the appellants. 19. After going through the evidence on record as well as the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, I do not see any infirmity in the judgment and award of the Tribunal. In the given set of facts and evidence, the Tribunal has given correct reasonings and directed the appellants herein to pay an amount of Rs.12500/- with interest @ Rs.12% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. from 5.4.1988 till realization. The Tribunal was correct in directing the appellants to pay Rs.7500/- to respondent No.3 Insurance Company towards the reimbursement of the amount of interim relief paid by respondent No.3 to the claimants. 20. The Tribunal was also perfectly justified in directing the appellants to jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the claimants with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 5.4.1988. Whatever directions are given by the Tribunal by judgment and award dated 23.3.1993 are perfectly justified and are sustainable in law. 20. The Tribunal was also perfectly justified in directing the appellants to jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the claimants with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 5.4.1988. Whatever directions are given by the Tribunal by judgment and award dated 23.3.1993 are perfectly justified and are sustainable in law. The judgment and award of the Tribunal is based upon the evidence placed on record. There is proper appreciation of the evidence and contentions of the parties by the Tribunal. No interference is called for. First appeals are dismissed. 21. Learned advocate appearing for the appellants prayed for six months time to comply with the judgment and award dated 23.3.1993 passed by the M.A.C.T. Aurangabad. In the facts and circumstances of this case, prayer is reasonable. Six months time is granted to comply with the judgment and award of the M.A.C. Tribunal Aurangabad. The entire amount as ordered by the M.A.C.T. Aurangabad shall be disbursed to the respective claimants in claim petition Nos.35 of 1988 and 36 of 1988. 22. With these observations. The appeals are dismissed. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vssacated.