JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The National Insurance Company Limited has filed these seven Miscellaneous Appeals u/s 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act assailing a common judgment dated 28th August, 1999 passed by the 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Berhampur (Ganjam) in twenty-four MJCs. 2. On 22nd September, 1993 in the evening some of the devotees of Lord Ganesh of Patraguda village of Rayagada district were proceeding in a procession for immersion of the idol. Unfortunately near Hukumtala Road a truck bearing registration number ORH 1747 being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from Muniguda side and ran over the processionists. As a result, most of the devotees sustained grievous injuries on their person out of whom some succumbed. The injured persons as well as the legal representatives of the deceased filed twenty-four petitions u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal below claiming compensation. After receiving notice from the Tribunal the owner of the offending truck appeared and filed his written statement denying the claim of the Petitioners. According to him the accident occurred not due to negligent driving of the driver of the truck but due to negligence of the deceased and the injured persons. He further stated that the driver of the offending truck, which was duly insured with the Appellant Insurance Company, was possessing a valid Driving Licence. The Insurance Company contested the case by filing a separate written statement vaguely denying all the allegations of the claimants. According to it, the deceased persons as well as the injured Petitioners were travelling in a goods vehicle and the conditions of the insurance policy having been violated it (Insurance Company) was not liable to pay any compensation. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed three issues for deciding the cases. In order to substantiate their respective cases, the claimants got as many as twelve witnesses examined and exhibited thirty-three documents. On behalf of the owner of the truck one witness was examined and two documents were exhibited. The Insurance Company got two witnesses examined on its behalf and exhibited ten documents. 4. In order to substantiate their respective cases, the claimants got as many as twelve witnesses examined and exhibited thirty-three documents. On behalf of the owner of the truck one witness was examined and two documents were exhibited. The Insurance Company got two witnesses examined on its behalf and exhibited ten documents. 4. The Tribunal first dealt with issue No. 1, i.e. "As to whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle ?".Considering the evidence of P.Ws 8, 9, 10 and 11 who were members of the procession and had been injured in the accident, as well as the injury reports, post-mortem reports and other medical evidence the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the injured Petitioners and the deceased persons were pedestrians and due to rash and negligent driving of the truck the accident in question had occurred. Considering the age, income, gravity of the injuries and other factors, the Tribunal awarded different compensation amounts in different MJCs. The Insurance Company approached this Court assailing the award passed in all the cases. Out of the eight appeals, M.A. No. 1126 of 1999 was heard and disposed of by order dated 14-5-2002. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to avoid unnecessary delay this Court in a spirit of Lok Adalat upheld the findings and felt it just arid proper to direct the Insurance Company to pay the compensation in that case which was reduced to Rs. 15,000.00 from Rs. 20,000.00. of course while disposing of the said appeal this Court observed that the disposal of the said appeal was without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Insurance Company to raise their submission in other appeals arising out of the analogous claim cases. It appears that some other appeals filed by the Insurance Company have also been disposed of by nominally reducing the compensation and directing the Insurance Company to pay the same. 5. Referring to the said observation in M.A. No. 1126 of 1999, the Appellant Insurance Company assailed the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, awarding different compensation amounts, mainly on the ground that the deceased persons as well as the injured Petitioners being passengers in a truck which was a goods vehicle, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. Referring to the said observation in M.A. No. 1126 of 1999, the Appellant Insurance Company assailed the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, awarding different compensation amounts, mainly on the ground that the deceased persons as well as the injured Petitioners being passengers in a truck which was a goods vehicle, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. There is No. dispute with regard to the legal proposition that liability cannot be saddled on the insurer in respect of persons travelling in goods vehicle. Thus the main issue that needs to be determined in these appeals is as to whether the deceased persons and the injured Petitioners were travelling in a goods vehicle or whether they were members of the procession carrying Lord Ganesh for immersion and were pedestrians. 6. In order to substantiate the stand of the Insurance Company that the deceased persons and the injured Petitioners were travelling in a truck which was a goods vehicle, Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company relied on a plain paper FIR said to have been lodged with the OIC of Muniguda Police Station and the statement of the Investigator appointed by the Insurance Company. He also relied upon the statements of some P.Ws. He further submitted that the G.R.Case arising out of the accident being No. 202 of 1993 in the court of the JMFC, Bissam Katak having ended in acquittal of the driver, it should be presumed that he was not driving the vehicle negligently. His next contention was that the driver of the vehicle having not been examined as a witness in the cases the Tribunal acted illegally in coming to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligence of the driver of the truck and saddling the compensation on the Insurance Company. 7. Perusal of the pleadings reveals two stories. According to the claimants some of whom were injured and were eye-witnesses to the accident, in the evening of the accident day they along with others were carrying the idol of Lord Ganesh for immersion. They were dancing on the road and all of them were pedestrians. At that juncture the offending truck driven in a rash and negligent manner came and trampled over the processionists. They were dancing on the road and all of them were pedestrians. At that juncture the offending truck driven in a rash and negligent manner came and trampled over the processionists. To substantiate such statements, the claimants got twelve witnesses examined out of whom P.Ws 8, 9, 10 and 11 were not only injured persons but were also eye-witnesses to the accident. P.W. 12 was an outsider and was also an eye-witness to the accident. 8. P.W. 8 in his examination in chief deposed as follows:- About forty persons were going in a procession for immersion of deity Ganesh to Hukumtala Nala by walking. We just arrived near the Nala. At that time we were dancing around the deity on the side of the road. At that time a full body truck covered with tarpaulin came from Muniguda side in a zigjag manner in high speed and suddenly ran over us. xx xx About seven to eight persons were pressed under the wheels and Ors. were thrown out.' The said witness was cross-examined in extenso. Though the Insurance Company tried to prove that the distance between Patraguda to Hukumtala was about two K.Ms, the witness had stated that there was a shortcut way by which No. vehicle used to pass and the distance was only about half a kilometer and the procession was going on that road. In cross-examination he stated: After crossing fifty to forty feet of the main road, while we were by the side of the road, a truck came. We were on either side of the road. While we were standing with the deity, the accident took place. 9. In the cross-examination it was further brought out that in the offending truck about twenty to twenty-five passengers were travelling. But then it appears on a close reading of the entire depositions that the accident had occurred on a market day and some persons were travelling in the offending truck. The evidence of P.W. 9 appears to be more specific. In his examination in chief he stated as follows:- About forty persons started from Patraguda to Hukumtala in a shortcut way. Before half a kilometre to Hukumtala we came to the main road by walk. After touching the main road we walked for 100 meters on the left side of the road towards Hukumtala. Then we kept the deity on the ground and were dancing. Before half a kilometre to Hukumtala we came to the main road by walk. After touching the main road we walked for 100 meters on the left side of the road towards Hukumtala. Then we kept the deity on the ground and were dancing. At that time the truck ORH 1747 came from Muniguda side in speed. It was a full body truck covered with tarpaulin.'' Though P.W. 9 was cross-examined at length on behalf of the Insurance Company nothing could be elicited to discard his statements. The statements of this witness have been corroborated by P.Ws 8, 10 and 11. 10. P.W. 12 was an outsider. He was travelling in the offending truck to Kuturaguda to attend the market. He was inside the cabin of that truck. In his deposition he stated inter alia as follows:- I found there was a gathering of people doing procession with deity Ganesh by the side of the road near Hukumtala Nala and the driver was driving the truck in high speed. I cautioned the driver from a distance of about 150 feet to slow the truck as a there was gathering ahead. Near the gathering the truck ran over the processionists and capcized.'' He stated that about 15 to 20 passengers were sitting on the 'Dala' of the truck as it was a market day. He was cross-examined on behalf of the Insurance Company, but in vain. 11. A reading of the entire evidence gives an impression that the truck ran over the deceased and injured who were among the processionsists. There is absolutely No. evidence to the effect that any of the passengers of the truck had filed any claim case. Only because there was some statement that some persons were travelling in the truck, that does not indicate that any of the deceased persons or the injured Petitioners were among them. On the other hand, evidence of the witnesses is very clear that the deceased persons and the injured Petitioners were members of the procession and not passengers in the truck. Their statements were not shaken by the Insurance Company. 12. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company laid much stress on the plain paper FIR lodged at the police station. In the said FIR it was stated that as the truck capcized some of the passengers got injured and some died. Their statements were not shaken by the Insurance Company. 12. Learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company laid much stress on the plain paper FIR lodged at the police station. In the said FIR it was stated that as the truck capcized some of the passengers got injured and some died. But then the person who had lodged that FIR was not examined as a witness before the Tribunal. Therefore the veracity of the statements made in the FIR has not been established. The investigating officer who had conducted investigation into the case was also not examined as a witness before the Tribunal. Relying on a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. Vs. Nand Kishore and Others it was submitted that the averments made in the FIR should have been accepted by the Tribunal by avoiding technicalities. 13. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kishore Chandra Mohanty and Another this Court held as follows:- Learned Counsel for the claimant has referred to and relied on Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. Vs. Nand Kishore and Others, in support of the contention that such documents in a summary enquiry like an inquiry under the M.V.Act should be accepted as evidence by avoiding technicalities. Keeping in view the provision of law this Court does not entirely agree with the view expressed by the Rajasthan High Court. To make the aforesaid finding more clear it may be stated here that certified copies of the FIR, charge-sheet or seizure list ipso facto do not get exemption of proof being prepared by investigating officer in due discharge of the official duty unless such documents and contents thereof is not disputed or admitted in evidence on consent or without objection from the opponent. Or else such documents are to be read in evidence if proved in accordance with law. of course, even if, such documents are admitted without objection dispensing with the procedure for formal proof and accepted as evidence, the opponent can always lead evidence to contradict or falsify such evidence. Thus such documents in such cases shall have rebuttable presumption. (Emphasis supplied) 14. So far as evidence of the two witnesses examined on behalf of the Insurance Company is concerned, the Tribunal has elaborately discussed this aspect in the impugned judgment. Out of the said two witnesses, OPW-1 was the Branch Manager. Thus such documents in such cases shall have rebuttable presumption. (Emphasis supplied) 14. So far as evidence of the two witnesses examined on behalf of the Insurance Company is concerned, the Tribunal has elaborately discussed this aspect in the impugned judgment. Out of the said two witnesses, OPW-1 was the Branch Manager. He had No. directed knowledge about the accident. According to him he had engaged OPW-2 as the investigator. But then OPW-2 was the advocate of the Insurance Company. The Tribunal has rightly observed that it was not proper on the part of the Insurance Company to engage their advocate privately and get him examined as a witness. Even otherwise, the statement of OPW -2 was hearsay and he had No. direct knowledge. A cumulative reading of the entire evidence leaves No. doubt in the mind of this Court that all the claimants have established the fact that the deceased and injured persons were among the processionists and were dancing on the side of the road when the offending truck ran over them. On the other hand the Insurance Company filed to establish that any of the deceased or injured persons was a passenger in the offending truck. Thus this Court finds No. error in the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal with regard to the accident in question and confirms the same. 15. The only other aspect which needs consideration is with regard to quantum of compensation awarded in each case. No. material has been produced before this Court with regard to filing of any petition u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Insurance Company. The Memorandum of Appeal is also silent in that regard. Bereft of such petition, the Appellant-Insurance Company is estopped from assailing the quantum of compensation. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Chandigarh Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Others the Supreme Court held as follows:- The right of appeal is not an inherent right or common law right, but it is a statutory right. If the law provides that an appeal can be filed on limited grounds, the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged on the premise that the insured or the persons against whom a claim has been made has not filed any appeal. If the law provides that an appeal can be filed on limited grounds, the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged on the premise that the insured or the persons against whom a claim has been made has not filed any appeal. Section 149(2) of 1988 Act limits the insurer's appeal on those enumerated grounds and the appeal being a product of the statute it is not open to an insurer to take any other plea other than those provided in Section 149(2) of 1988 Act. The view that a right to contest would also include the right to file an appeal is contrary to well established law that creation of a right to appeal is an act which requires legislative authority and No. court or tribunal can confer such right.' It is well settled that it is not permissible for an insurer to file an appeal questioning the quantum of compensation as well as finding as regard negligence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle unless the conditions precedent specified in Section 170 of 1988 Act is satisfied. Motor vehicle accident claim is a tortuous claim directed against for reasons who are the insured and the driver of the vehicle and the insurer comes to the scene as a result of statutory liability created under the Motor Vehicle Act. The legislature has ensured by enacting Section 149 of the Act that the victims of motor vehicle are fully compensated and protected It is for that reason the insurer cannot escape from its liability to pay compensation on any exclusionary clause in the insurance policy except those specified in Section 149(2) of the Act or where the condition precedent specified in Section 170 is satisfied. The same view was also expressed by this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v: Mst. Ukia Guru and Anr., 2007 (Supp-I) OLR 580, and it was held that insurer having not filed any petition u/s 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act is estopped from assailing the quantum of compensation. That apart, in the case at hand, the owner of the offending truck had contested the claim cases (MJCs) before the Tribunal. Even otherwise, perusal of the discussions made by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment reveals that it had taken the age, income and other factors into consideration and the compensation amounts awarded are neither exorbitant nor otherwise unjustified. That apart, in the case at hand, the owner of the offending truck had contested the claim cases (MJCs) before the Tribunal. Even otherwise, perusal of the discussions made by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment reveals that it had taken the age, income and other factors into consideration and the compensation amounts awarded are neither exorbitant nor otherwise unjustified. this Court is, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the quantum of compensation amounts, but then reduces the rate of interest from 9% to 6%. 16. With regard to the contention of the Appellant that the driver of the offending truck having not possessed a valid driving licence No. liability can be saddled on it, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co., Shimla Vs. Kamla and Others etc. etc., as also various other decisions, not possessing a valid driving licence by the driver of the offending vehicle being a breach of policy condition for that the poor claimant is not to suffer. It shall be the duty of the insurer to first pay the compensation to the claimant and then realise the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Even otherwise in consonance with Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation and realise the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement, this Court directs the Appellant to deposit the entire amounts before the Tribunal as per the awards made in the impugned judgment for disbursement to the claimant-Petitioners and initiate suitable proceedings for realisation of the same from the owner of the offending truck if so advised. 17. After the deposit as directed above is made, on application being filed, the statutory deposits made by the Insurance Company before this Court with interest accrued thereon be returned to it by crossed-cheque. 18. With the aforesaid direction all the Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of. A.S. Naidu, J. 19. I agree.