Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Appeals Nos. 2058/2010, 2065/2010, 2060/2010, 2060/2010, 2068/2010, 2069/2010, and 2090/2010 have been filed by the claimant- appellants for enhancement of claim amount and the Appeals Nos.754/2011, 745/2011, 747/2011, 749/2011, 753/2011, 757/2011, 758/2011, 768/2011, 772/2011, 847/2011, 1626/2011, 733/2011, 746/2011, 756/2011, 771/2011, 2623/2011 have been filed by the United India insurance Co. Ltd granting of claims to the claimants by the award dated 15.5.2010 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge No.1 Bayan (Bharatpur) with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition. 2. Since these appeals relate to common award dated 15.5.2010, they are being disposed by this common judgment. 3. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 4. On 2.12.1998 tanker No. G3 12 U 6938 carrying highly inflammable substance was going from Jaipur to Agra on National Highway No.11 and when it reached near village Aamoli, its driver drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, turned it on kacha road in such a manner that it fell in the ditch and the inflammable substance caught fire and many passers by sustained injuries and some of them died. The tanker was being driven by respondent non- claimant No.2 and was owned by respondent non-claimant No.1 and was insured with the appellant insurance company. The heirs of 15 deceased persons and 4 injured persons ( i.e. 19 in all ) filed separate claim petitions under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bayana ( Bharatpur) against the non- claimants. The non-claimants 1 and 2 did not appear despite service and as such were proceeded exparte. The insurance company in their reply to the claim petition stated that neither there was any nexus in between the accident and the injuries/ death caused to the victims nor there was any negligence of the driver and further, the driver was not having a valid driving license. The mact framed six issues. 21 witnesses were produced from the side of the claimants in the connected file and 4 witnesses in file Bhagwan Singh vs. Babulal while one witness was produced from the side of the insurance company. The mact framed six issues. 21 witnesses were produced from the side of the claimants in the connected file and 4 witnesses in file Bhagwan Singh vs. Babulal while one witness was produced from the side of the insurance company. The MACT allowed the application dated 1.11.2002 under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the appellant insurance company and thus it has been stated by the appellant insurance company that they have a right to file appeal on all the grounds available to the owner and the driver of the vehicle. 5. The learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that the MACT has committed an illegality in deciding the issue No.3 against the insurance company. An objection was raised by the insurance company in their reply to the claim petitions that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The driver and the owner of the offending tanker neither appeared before the MACT nor filed any reply to the claim petition and also did not appear in the witness box to contradict the objection taken by the insurance company. The offending vehicle was carrying highly inflammable and hazardous substance at the time of the accident. The driver of the vehicle was not authorised to drive the said vehicle unless there was an endorsement on his driving license authorizing him to drive such vehicle. The driving license of the driver was submitted by the claimants and the same showed that there was no endorsement authorizing him to drive the offending vehicle which was carrying highly inflammable and dangerous substance at the time of the accident. It was proved on record that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective license to drive the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The MACT did not evaluate and consider the evidence on record properly and legally and thus illegally decided issue No.3 against the insurance company. The learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that the insurance company may be given a right to recover the amount of compensation paid or being paid by them to the claimants under the impugned award with interest from the non-claimants 1 and 2. The learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that the insurance company may be given a right to recover the amount of compensation paid or being paid by them to the claimants under the impugned award with interest from the non-claimants 1 and 2. The MACT has committed an illegality in deciding issues 1 and 5 in favour of the claimants and against the appellant insurance company. The claimants have placed reliance on the FIR which was lodged by the SHO himself wherein it was stated that the victims of the accident were trying to collect the inflammable. substance which was leaking from the tanker and in that process, the inflammable substance of the tanker caught fire. From the fir it was proved that the victims of the accident were solely or mainly responsible for the accident. The police after investigation came to the conclusion that the victims of the accident had collected at the site after the tanker fell in the ditch and at that time the highly inflammable substance caught fire. A warning was written on the tanker that it contained highly inflammable substance and in addition to this, the highly inflammable substance was leaking from the tanker. The victims ought not to have come near the tanker and if they so came near it either they were solely or mainly responsible for the accident. The negligence could be attributed to the driver of the offending vehicle only till the vehicle fell in the ditch and whatever happened thereafter, was an unfortunate accident for which the victims were themselves responsible, either solely or mainly. There was no nexus in between the accident of vehicle falling in the ditch and subsequent injuries caused to the injured persons/ death caused of the deceased persons. In the alternative it was submitted that the driver of the vehicle was negligent and responsible for the accident to some extent, this court may reduce the amount of compensation to the extent the victim is found contributory negligent and responsible for the accident. There was either no negligence of the driver of the vehicle in the accident or there was slight negligence on his part and the victim himself was either solely or mainly responsible for the accident. There was either no negligence of the driver of the vehicle in the accident or there was slight negligence on his part and the victim himself was either solely or mainly responsible for the accident. The insurance company deserves to be completely absolved from the liability to pay compensation, or in the alternatively the compensation should be reduced on account of contributory negligence of the victim himself. Reliance has been placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rakesh Kumar Arora and others ( 2008 ACJ 2855 = 2009(1) CCR 329 (SC)), National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and others ( 2008 ACJ 2860 ), Sardari and others vs. Sushil Kumar and others ( 2008 ACJ 1307 , Bhuwan Singh vs. Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. ( 2009 ACJ 1426 = 2009(1) CCR 592 (SC)). 6. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant- appellants has argued that the MACT while assessing the compensation awarded meagre amount. The income of the deceased was not properly determined. The future prospects of the deceased was not considered in the award. The MACT has wrongly deducted one third amount towards personal expenses of the deceased but according to the judgment of Sarla Verma vs. dtc, this amount should have been one fifth only. The multiplier was not properly applied. The MACT has awarded very meager amount in the miscellaneous heads like love and affection etc. The MACT has awarded interest 6% only but it ought to have been atleast 12% per annum. The learned counsel for the claimant appellants has placed reliance on N.V. Kamat vs. A.A.D. Martins ( AIR 1985 SC 1281 ), Suresh Mohan Chopra vs. Lakhi Prabhu Dayal and others 1991 ACJ Vol. L page 1, Rukmani and others vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And others (1999 (3) TAC 209, National insurance Co. vs. Mansa Ram and others 2002 (2) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 161, Rama Nand Vs. Smt. Lalita Sharma and others (1992(1) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 250, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Deen Dayal (1986 ACJ 251, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kamla and others (2001 ACJ 843, New India Assurance Co. LTD. vs. ramanand and others (1994 ACJ 571), Laxmi Devi and others vs. Mohammad Tabbar and another II (2008) ACC 364 (SC), New India Assurance Com. Ltd. vs. Deen Dayal (1986 ACJ 251, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kamla and others (2001 ACJ 843, New India Assurance Co. LTD. vs. ramanand and others (1994 ACJ 571), Laxmi Devi and others vs. Mohammad Tabbar and another II (2008) ACC 364 (SC), New India Assurance Com. vs. Yadu Sambhaji More and others Civil Appeal No. 3744 of 2005 decided on 7.1.2011 by the Supreme Court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record. 8. Before proceeding further it would be necessary to have a look at the judgments cited by the counsel for the parties. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rakesh Kumar Arora and others ( 2008 ACJ 2855 = 2009(1) CCR 329 (SC)), a 15 years old boy who was driving the carat the time of accident admitted that he was not having any driving licence. In the case of National Insurance Co, Ltd. vs. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and Others ( 2008 ACJ 2860 ), driving licence of the driver of offending vehicle had expired prior to date of accident and was got renewed after the accident. In Sardari and others vs. Sushil Kumar and others ( 2008 ACJ 1307 ), on concurrent finding of High Court and the Tribunal that driver of tractor had no licence, the claimants were entitled to compensation from driver and owner of vehicle. In Bhuwan Singh vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another ( 2009 ACJ 1426 ), the insurance company avoided its liability on the ground that driver had no valid and effective licence. In N.V. Kamat vs. A.A.D. Martin (AIR 1983 SC 1281), plea by insurance company that there was breach of term of policy in that the driver of insured vehicle did not have valid licence, and the insurance company did not produce any evidence to prove breach, it was held that the company's liability subsists. In Suresh Mohan Chopra vs. Lakhi Prabhu Dayal and others (ACJ 1991 volume 1 page 1), driver was produced as a witness by insurance company and he stated that he had a driving licence at the relevant time but did not produce the same, the Apex Court held that the burden was on the insurance company to prove that the driver had no licence. In Rukmani vs. New India Assurance Co. In Rukmani vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And others ((1991(3) TAC 209), the Apex Court held that the burden is on the insurance company to establish that the driver of the vehicle had no valid driving licence. In National Insurance Co. vs. Mansa Ram and others (2002(2) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 161), jeep hit by truck. Death of driver of jeep. Driver of truck possessing licence to drive light motor vehicle. Plea of breach of conditions of policy. Issue framed. Burden to prove its plea on insurer. Insurer failing to to produce evidence to establish its plea. Insurer knowing that driver of truck had no valid licence yet not produced licence in question before Tribunal. insurer was entitled to produce licence at appellate stage. Ground to permit additional evidence not made out. Insurer liable to pay compensation. In Rama Nand vs. Smt. Lalita Sharma and others (1992(1) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 250), plea of forged driving licence with driver of offending vehicle. Criminal case in respect of same accident pending. Licence in question produced in criminal court but no finding yet arrived at whether licence was forged. No evidence adduced by insurer to discharge its burden regarding licence being forged. Statement of driver that he possessed valid licence not to be disbelieved. Dumping conclusion on mere allegation in criminal case not justified in holding the driver to have produced forged licence. Insurer held liable. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Deen Dayal (1986 AC3 251), insurance company contended that the driver of truck was not holding any licence at the time of accident and as such it is not liable. Claimants lead evidence that the driver had licence. Whether it was for the insurance Company to prove that the driver did not hold a valid driving licence and insurance company failed to discharge this burden. Held, yes, insurance company liable, mere statement of driver who is a respondent that he had no licence cannot bind the claimants. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kamla and others, (2001 ACJ 843), insurance company disputed its liability on the plea that driver of the offending vehicle had fake licence which was renewed after the accident. Owner deposed that he engaged the driver after satisfying himself that he had a valid licence. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kamla and others, (2001 ACJ 843), insurance company disputed its liability on the plea that driver of the offending vehicle had fake licence which was renewed after the accident. Owner deposed that he engaged the driver after satisfying himself that he had a valid licence. Application of Insurance Company for permission to lead evidence for proving that licence was fake was rejected by the Tribunal. In appeal, High Court found that the insurance company had not adduced sufficient evidence to discharge the burden which was cast on it. Whether the insurance company should have been given opportunity to substantiate its contention that the licence was forged. Held, yes, case remitted to the Tribunal with direction to afford to the parties opportunity for adducing evidence, as directed by the Apex Court, the amount awarded was paid by the insurance company to the claimants. Tribunal would decide whether the insurance company is entitled to recover that amount from the owner. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Ramanand and others (1994 ACJ 571 : 1992(2) WLC 344 ), relying on Narcinva vs. Kamat vs. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins 1985 ACJ 397, it was held that the burden to prove that the driver, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, did not have a valid driving licence was on the insurance company and once the insurance company failed to prove that aspect, its liability under the contract of insurance remains intact and unhampered. It was bound to satisfy the award under the comprehensive policy of insurance. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Ramanand and others (1994 ACJ 571 : 1992 (2) WLC 344 ), in para 18 it was held as under : "18. Mr. Alok Sharma lastly argued that it was a case of contributory negligence and not a case of composite negligence and, therefore, a serious error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in reversing the finding of the Tribunal. The facts which have come on record nowhere show as to how the deceased was in any manner responsible for the accident. The theory of contributory negligence comes into play only when the person who suffers injury or dies in an accident is found to have contributed to the occurrence. The facts which have come on record nowhere show as to how the deceased was in any manner responsible for the accident. The theory of contributory negligence comes into play only when the person who suffers injury or dies in an accident is found to have contributed to the occurrence. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel that the liability is fastened on the appellant alone cannot be accepted." In New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Yadu Sambhaji More and others (Civil Appeal No. 3744 of 2005 decided on 7.1.2011) : (2011) 2 SCC 416 = 2011(1) CCR 106 (SC), in the early hours of 29.10.1987 a petrol tanker bearing Registration No. mxl 7461, was proceeding on National Highway 4, coming from the Pune side and going towards Bangalore. As it reached near Village Kavathe, in the district of Satara, Maharashtra, a truck, bearing Registration No. meh 4197, laden with onions, was coming from the opposite direction. At the point where the two vehicles crossed each other, there was a pile of rubble on the left side of the road. As the two vehicles crossed each other, the rear right side of the petrol tanker was hit by the rear left side of the truck. As a result of the impact, the petrol tanker was thrown off the road and it came to rest on its left side/cleaner's side on the kutcha ground, about 5 ft below the road. As a result of the collision and the falling down of the petrol tanker on its side, petrol started leaking from the tanker. The tanker driver was unable to stop the leak even though he tried to tighten the lid. The accident took place at around 3:15 a.m. Shortly after the accident, another tanker, coming from the Bombay side passed by. In that tanker, apart from the driver, there was also an officer of Indian Oil Company. Both of them assured the driver of the fallen down tanker that they would report the accident at the police station and asked him to wait near the place of the accident. Later on, yet another tanker from Sangli arrived at the spot and then the cleaner of the ill-fated tanker and the owner of the Sangli tanker together went to Village Kavathe in search of a telephone to inform the tanker owner about the accident. Later on, yet another tanker from Sangli arrived at the spot and then the cleaner of the ill-fated tanker and the owner of the Sangli tanker together went to Village Kavathe in search of a telephone to inform the tanker owner about the accident. After they came back from the village all of them, the driver and the cleaner of the tanker that had met with accident and the owner, the driver and the cleaner of the tanker coming from Sangli waited near the accident site. At daybreak, the local people started collecting near the fallen down tanker and some of them brought cans and tried to collect the petrol leaking out from the tanker. The driver of the tanker tried to stop them from collecting petrol or even going near the tanker, explaining to them that doing so would be risky and dangerous. No one, however, listened to him and he was even manhandled. In the melee, the petrol caught fire and there was a big explosion in which 46 persons lost their lives. The heirs and legal representatives of those people who died at the accident site filed claim petitions for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 before the MACT, Satara, against the owner of the petrol tanker and its insurer. In all the cases, claims were also made for payment of Rs. 15,000 as no-fault compensation under section 92-A of the Act. The owner of the tanker and the insurer questioned the jurisdiction of the Claims Tribunal to entertain such petitions on the ground that the fire and the explosion causing the death of those who had assembled at the accident site could not be said to be an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle. The Claims Tribunal upheld the objection raised by the insurer and the owner of the petrol tanker, and by a common order dated 2.12.1989, dismissed all the claim petitions **** under Section 92-A of the Act on the ground that the fire and the explosion could not be said to be accident arising out of the use of the petrol tanker and hence, the provisions of Section 92-A of the Act were not attracted. The Claims Tribunal pointed out that there was a time-gap of about 4 hours between the tanker meeting with the road accident and the fire and explosion of the tanker and there was absolutely no connection between the road accident and the fire accident that took place about 4 hours later. Against the order of the Claims Tribunal passed on 2-12-1989, appeals were filed before the High Court. One such appeal was filed by Vatschala Uttam More, whose son Deepak Uttam More was one of the persons who died as a result of injuries caused by the fire and explosion of the petrol tanker. A learned Single Judge of the High court allowed the appeal and by the judgment dated 5-2-1990, reversed the order passed by the Claims Tribunal. Against the decision of the Single Judge, the owner of the petrol tanker and the Insurance Company filed a letters patent appeal which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court by the judgment dated 16-8-1990. The owner of the petrol tanker and the insurance Company then brought the matter to Apex Court in SLP No. 14822 of 1990 challenging the judgment and order of the High Court passed on 16-8-1990. The slp was dismissed by the Apex Court by the judgment and order passed on 17-7-1991. The judgment is reported as Shivaji Dayanu Patil vs. Vatschala Uttam More (1991) 3 SCC 530 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 865 and in this judgment the Apex Court considered at length the questions whether the fire and explosion of the petrol tanker in which Deepak Uttam More lost his life could be said to have resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, namely, the petrol tanker. The Apex court answered the question in the affirmative, that is to say. in favour of the claimant and against the insurer. The judgment of the Apex Court, thus, put: an end to the objections raised by the owner and the insurer of the petrol tanker against the claim of no-fault compensation by and/or on behalf of the victims of the fire and explosion accident. in favour of the claimant and against the insurer. The judgment of the Apex Court, thus, put: an end to the objections raised by the owner and the insurer of the petrol tanker against the claim of no-fault compensation by and/or on behalf of the victims of the fire and explosion accident. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Yadu Sambhaji More and others (Civil Appeal No. 3744 of 2005 decided on 7.1.2011) : (2011) 2 SCC 416 = 2011(1) CCR 106 (SC), placing reliance on Shivaji Dayanu Patil (1991) 3 SCC 530 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 865,on which the MACT placed reliance in the impugned award, in paras 23 and 24 held as under : 23. we have examined the evidences of the OWs adduced before the Claims Tribunal, in particular the depositions of Shivaji Patil, the owner of the petrol tanker, who examined himself as owl and Dhondirama Mali, the driver of the ill-fated petrol tanker who was examined as OW2. We have also gone through the judgment of the Tribunal. In the evidences of the OWs, there was no new material fact that was not already before this Court in Shivaji Dayanu Patil (1991) 3 SCC 530 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 865. And on the basis of the evidences led by the opposite party, no new points were raised before the Claims Tribunal that can be said to have not been raised before this Court in Shivaji Dayanu Patil1. The High Court was, therefore, perfectly justified in observing in para 26 of the judgment coming under appeal as fol1ows: "... But whether the vehicle was in use or not was a question before the Supreme Court and even after evidence that aspect has not changed. Time at which the accident occurred viz. catching the fire by the petrol has remained the same. The circumstances preceding this particular point have also remained the same. But whether the vehicle was in use or not was a question before the Supreme Court and even after evidence that aspect has not changed. Time at which the accident occurred viz. catching the fire by the petrol has remained the same. The circumstances preceding this particular point have also remained the same. The manner in which the petrol tanker came near the spot and how it was hit by a vehicle or truck coming from opposite direction also remained the same even after evidence and therefore when facts which were before the Supreme Court have not at all changed in spite of the full trial and evidence, the judgment of the Supreme Court has to be accepted and taken as a concluded judgment so far as the issue as to whether the vehicle was 'in use' or 'arising out of the use of the motor vehicle', fully and concluding. Secondly, questions before the Supreme Court was about the interpretation of the words 'arising out of use of motor vehicle'. The situation, namely, occurring explosion to the petrol tanker has not changed so far as this particular aspect is concerned...." 24. In light of the discussions made above, it must be held that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decision rendered in Shivaji Dayanu Patil1 was completely binding on the Claims Tribunal and it was not open to the Claims Tribunal to come to any finding inconsistent with the aforesaid decision of this Court. The issue framed by the High Court is answered accordingly. There is no merit in the appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed with costs." 9. Now I may look into the findings on issues arrived at by the mact and the arguments raised by the parties. In relation to issue No.1, the claimants produced three witnesses namely, AD 15 Babulal, AD 16 Khyaliram and AD 17 Rampal, who were actually the persons who were present at the site. AD 15 Babulal stated that on 2.12.98 at 5 p.m. Tanker GJ 12 U 6938 was coming from Jaipur and going to Agra. The driver of the Tanker overturned the Tanker towards Kacha and after 20-25 minutes Tanker caught fire on account of inflammable material in the Tanker. On account of rashness and negligent driving of the driver of the Tanker the accident took place and 15 persons died in the fire. The driver of the Tanker overturned the Tanker towards Kacha and after 20-25 minutes Tanker caught fire on account of inflammable material in the Tanker. On account of rashness and negligent driving of the driver of the Tanker the accident took place and 15 persons died in the fire. Similar is the statement of AD 16 Khyaliram and AD. 17 Rampal. fir ex. 3 was registered and after investigation charge sheet was filed for the offence under sections 279 and 304 A IPC. The Investigating officer in the FIR stated thus : ^^vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh us Li"V :i ls ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- esa crk;k fd yksxks us crk;k fd VSadj dks mlds pkyd us rst xfr o ykijokgh ls pykdj xyrh ls x<~<s esa frjNk dj fn;kA bl rjg vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh us vuqla/kku dk;Zokgh dk fu"d"kZ Lo:i tks vkjksi i= is'k fd;k x;k gS mlesa VSadj pkyd ds f[kykQ xQyr] rsth o ykijokgh dk tqeZ ik;k x;kA** The mact after considering the various rulings cited by the counsel for the parties in relation to issue No.1 gave the following findings : ^^vr% mijksä foospu ls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZx.k us fook|d la[;k 1 ds lEcU/k c[kwch lkfcr fd;k gS fnukad 2-12-98 dks jk"Vªh; jkt ekxZ la- 11 ij xzke vkeksyh ds lehi okgu th-ts- 12@;w 6938 ds pkyd }kjk okgu dks Vs<k dj fn;k ftlls mlesa Hkjs gq, Toyu'khy inkFkZ ls foLQksV gks x;k ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i gsrhjke] rkjkpan] ij'kqjke] lqxM+flag] eksguflag] rkjk] dsnkflag] ghjkyky] dqekjh iwue] dqekjh vksek] NksVsyky] fot;flag] eatw] gjh'kpUnz] jkes'oj dh e`R;q gks xbZ rFkk vU; Hkxokuflag] nqyhpUn] 'ksjflag rFkk vkseizdk'k ds pksVsa dkfjr gqbZ\** I have gone through the findings recorded by the MACT on issue No.1 and I am in agreement with the findings that the accident took place on account of rashness and negligent driving of the driver of the Tanker and on account of which fifteen persons died and four persons received injuries. The findings of the mact are based on the basis of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Yadu Sambhaji More and others (Civil Appeal No. 3744 of 2005 decided on 7.1.2011) : (2011) 2 SCC 416 = 2011(1) CCR 106 (SC), and Shivaji Dayanu Patil (1991) 3 SCC 530 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 865. In relation to issue No.3, the claimants submitted the driving license of the driver. In relation to issue No.3, the claimants submitted the driving license of the driver. The license was for the period 17.2.97 to 12.12.03 in the name of Babulal, driver of the Tanker. The claim of the insurance company that the driver of the Tanker was not having effective and valid license has no force and hence the issue No.3 was rightly decided against the insurance company. In relation to issue No.3 the mact observed as under : ^^;g fook|d chek dEiuh dks lkfcr djuk FkkA fd nq?kZVuk ds oä okgu pkyd ds ikl okgu pykus dk MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal ugha FkkA bl ckjs esa chek dEiuh dh vksj ls dksbZ LFkkfir lk{; izLrqr'kqnk ugha gS] ftlls fd bldh iqf"V gksA tks MªkbZfoax ykblsal bl izdj.k esa is'k gqvk gS] mlesa Hkh Li"V rkSj ij ;g mYysf[kr gS fd fnukad 17-2-97 ls 12-12-03 rd pkyd ckcwyky ds ikl oS/k MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal FkkA vr% ch-da- ds i{k esa ;g rF; drbZ lkfcr gksuk ugha ik;k tkrk gS fd okgu pkyd ds ikl oä nq?kZVuk oS/k MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal ugha gksA ,slh fLFkfr esa fook|d la[;k 3 chek dEiuh ds i{k esa lkfcr ugha fd, tkus ls muds fo:) fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA** I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the mact on issue No.3. The issue No.3 was rightly decided against the insurance company. On issue No.4 placing reliance on the case of Shivaji Dayanu Patil and others vs. Vataschalautmor (1999(1) ACJ 777 (SC) in which it was held that the fire was the outcome of accident and hence on account of this the insurance company cannot avoid the third party risk. In this manner the issue No.4 was decided against the insurance company. The MACT observed as under : ^^mä fook|d chek dEiuh dks lkfcr djuk FkkA bl lEcU/k esa chek dEiuh dh dksbZlk{; ugha gS fd nq?kZVuk ch- doj esa fdl rjg doj ugha gSA oLrqr% U;kf;d n`"Vkar 1991 ,lhts ist 777 ¼,l-lh-½ f'kokth n;kuqikfVy vkSj vU; cuke oRl pYyk mÙkeeksj esa fuf.kZr fof/k ls Li"V gS fd tks vkx yxus dh ?kVuk gqbZ og nq?kZVuk dk ifj.kkfed ifj.kke jgk gs rFkk VSadj iyVuk rFkk vkx yxus dh ?kVuk esa ijLij lEcU/k ik;k tkrk gS ,slh fLFkfr esa chek ikWfylh }kjk--------------------** I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT on issue No.4. On issue No.5 the MACT observed as under : ^^mä fook|d chek dEiuh dks lkfcr djuk FkkA fook|d la[;k 1 ds foLr`r foospu ls ;g fu"d"kZ fudyk gS fd nq?kZVuk okgu ds mi;ksx ds ifj.kkeLo:i gqbZ gSA pkyd dh ykijokgh ugha gks ,slk ugha ik;k x;k gS VSadj ls rsy pksjh dh ?kVuk dh ckr gkykafd ikbZ xbZ gS] fdUrq dksbZ foijhr izHkko bl izdj.k ij DysesaV ds Dyse ij ugha gksuk ik;k tkrk gSA bl ckjs esa fook|d la[;k 1 ds ckjs esa foLr`r foospu fd;k tk pqdk gSA oLrqr% bldk dksbZ foijhr izHkko DysesaV ds izdj.k ij ugha iM+rk gSA fook|d la[;k 5 ds lEcU/k esa chek dEiuh vius i{k esa lkfcr ugha dj ikbZ gSA vr% mä fook|d chek dEiuh ds i{k esa lkfcr ugha gksus ls muds fo:) fuf.kZr fd;k tkrk gSA** I am in agreement with the findings on issue No.5 which is based on the findings on issue No.1. The insurance company has not been able to produce any evidence in relation to issue No.5 hence it was rightly decided against the insurance company. The arguments raised by the insurance company on these issues being devoid of merit stand rejected in view of rulings of the Apex Court considered above. 10. Now I may consider the findings on issues 2 and 6 in each case, one by one as under: Misc. Appeals Nos. 2065/2010 and 771/2011 : Appeal No. 2065/2010 was filed by the claimants for enhancement of claims awarded by the MACT in claim case No.272/07 ( 68/99). Appeal No. 771/2011 was filed by the insurance company against he awarding of claims by the MACT in claim case No. 272/07 (68/99) on account of death of Harish Chand. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the insurance company and the claimants in relation to these two appeals filed in the Claim case No. 272/07 (68/99). As per the post mortem report the age of deceased was found to be 32 years and the claimants have not been able to produce any proof regarding his age and hence the MACT found that he was aged 30-35 and hence on this multiplier of 17 was righly applied. The income of the deceased Harish Chand was estimated to be Rs. 2400 per month. After deducting one third amount the yearly income was estimated to be Rs. 19,200/-. After multiplying Rs. The income of the deceased Harish Chand was estimated to be Rs. 2400 per month. After deducting one third amount the yearly income was estimated to be Rs. 19,200/-. After multiplying Rs. 19,200 by 17 it comes to Rs. 3,26,400/-. The wife of the deceased was given Rs. 5,000/- for love and affection and his children and mother were awarded Rs. 3,000/- each for loss of love and affection. For cremation the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. In this manner total Rs. 3,48,400/- were awarded as compensation. The claimants are not entitled for any enhancement in the amount awarded by the MACT. The insurance company has not been able to point out any infirmity in the grant of Rs. 3,48,400/- to be payable to the claimants as compensation on account of death of Harish Chandra. Thus the appeals filed by the insurance company and the claimants deserve to be rejected. Misc. Appeals Nos. 2058/2010 and 745/2011 : Appeal no. 2058/2010 was filed by the claimants for enhancement of claims awarded by the MACT in claim case No. 262/07 ( 27/99). Appeal No. 745/2011 was filed by the insurance company against the awarding of claims by the mact in claim case No. 262/07 (27/99) on account of death of Sugad Singh. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the insurance company and the claimants in relation to these two appeals filed in the claim case No. 262/07 (27/99). As per the post mortem report the age of deceased was found to be 35 years and the claimants have not been able to produce any proof regarding his age and hence the MACT found that he was aged 33-40 and hence on this multiplier of 16 was rightly applied. The income of the deceased Sugad Singh was estimated to be Rs. 2400 per month. After deducting one third amount the yearly income was estimated to be Rs. 19,200/-. After multiplying Rs. 19,200 by 16 it comes to Rs. 3,07,200/-. The wife of the deceased was given Rs. 5,000/- for love and affection and his children and father were awarded Rs. 3,000/- each for loss of love and affection. For medical treatment and going to Hospital the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- For cremation the mact awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. In this manner total Rs. 3,33,200/- were awarded as compensation. 5,000/- for love and affection and his children and father were awarded Rs. 3,000/- each for loss of love and affection. For medical treatment and going to Hospital the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- For cremation the mact awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. In this manner total Rs. 3,33,200/- were awarded as compensation. The claimants are not entitled for any enhancement in the amount awarded by the MACT. The insurance company has not been able to point out any infirmity in the grant of Rs. 3,33,200/- to be payable to the claimants as compensation on account of death of Sugad Singh. Thus the appeals filed by the insurance company and the claimants deserve to be rejected. Misc. Appeals Nos. 2069/2010 and 772/2011 : Appeal No. 2069/2010 was filed by the claimants for enhancement of claims awarded by the MACT in claim case No. 259/07 ( 24/99). Appeal No. 772/2011 was filed by the insurance company against the awarding of claims by the MACT in claim case No. 259/07 (24/99) on account of death of Hetiram. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the insurance company and the claimants in relation to these two appeals filed in the claim case no. 259/07 (24/99). As per the post mortem report the age of deceased was found to be 38 years and the claimants have not been able to produce any proof regarding his age and hence the mact found that he was aged 35-40 and hence on this multiplier of 16 was rightly applied. The income of the deceased Hetiram was estimated to be Rs. 2400 per month. After deducting one third amount the yearly income was estimated to be Rs. 19,200/-. After multiplying Rs. 19,200 by 16 it comes to Rs. 3,07,200/-. The wife of the deceased was given Rs. 5,000/- for love and affection and his children were awarded Rs. 3,000/- each for loss of love and affection. For medical treatment and going to Hospital the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- For cremation the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. In this manner total Rs. 3,28,200/- were awarded as compensation. The claimants are not entitled for any enhancement in the amount awarded by the mact. The insurance company has not been able to point out any infirmity in the grant of Rs. 5,000/- For cremation the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. In this manner total Rs. 3,28,200/- were awarded as compensation. The claimants are not entitled for any enhancement in the amount awarded by the mact. The insurance company has not been able to point out any infirmity in the grant of Rs. 3,28,200/- to be payable to the claimants as compensation on account of death of Hetiram. Thus the appeals filed by the insurance company and the claimants deserve to be rejected. Misc. Appeals Nos. 2070/2010 and 733/2011 : Appeal No. 2070/2010 was filed by the claimants for enhancement of claims awarded by the MACT in claim case No. 261/07 ( 26/99). Appeal No. 733/2011 was filed by the insurance company against the awarding of claims by the MACT in claim case No. 261/07 (26/99) on account of death of Parasram. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the insurance company and the claimants in relation to these two appeals filed in the claim case No. 261/07 (26/99). As per the post mortem report the age of deceased was found to be 22 years and the claimants have not been able to produce any proof regarding his age and hence the mact found that he was aged 20 and hence on this multiplier of 15 was rightly applied, as his mother's was found to be aged 40 years and his father was aged 42 years. The income of the deceased Parasram was estimated to be Rs. 2400 per month. After deducting one third amount the yearly income was estimated to be Rs. 19,200/-. After multiplying Rs. 19,200 by 15 it comes to Rs. 2,88,000/-. The father and mother of the deceased were given Rs. 5,000/- each for love and affection. For cremation the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. In this manner total Rs. 3,00,000/-were awarded as compensation. The claimants are not entitled for any enhancement in the amount awarded by the MACT. The insurance company has not been able to point out any infirmity in the grant of Rs. 3,00,000/- to be payable to the claimants as compensation on account of death of Parasram. Thus the appeals filed by the insurance company and the claimants deserve to be rejected. Misc. Appeals Nos. The insurance company has not been able to point out any infirmity in the grant of Rs. 3,00,000/- to be payable to the claimants as compensation on account of death of Parasram. Thus the appeals filed by the insurance company and the claimants deserve to be rejected. Misc. Appeals Nos. 2068/2010 and 1626/2011 : Appeal No. 2068/2010 was filed by the claimants for enhancement of claims awarded by the MACT in claim case No. 269/07 ( 48/99). Appeal No. 1626/2011 was filed by the insurance company against the awarding of claims by the MACT in claim case No. 269/07 (48/99) on account of death of Chhotelal. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the insurance company and the claimants in relation to these two appeals filed in the claim case No. 269/07 (48/99). As per the post mortem report the age of deceased was found to be 22 years and the claimants have not been able to produce any proof regarding his age and hence the MACT found that he was aged 20 and hence on this multiplier of 15 was rightly applied as his mother's was found to be aged 40 years and his father was aged 45 years. The income of the deceased Chhotelal was estimated to be Rs. 2400 per month. After deducting one third amount the yearly income was estimated to be Rs. 19,200/-. After multiplying Rs. 19,200 by 15 it comes to Rs. 2,88,000/-. The father and mother of the deceased were given Rs. 5,000/- each for love and affection. For medical treatment and going to Hospital the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- For cremation the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. In this manner total Rs. 3,05,000/- were awarded as compensation. The claimants are not entitled for any enhancement in the amount awarded by the mact. The insurance company has not been able to point out any infirmity in the grant of Rs. 3,05,000/- to be payable to the claimants as compensation on account of death of Chhotelal. Thus the appeals filed by the insurance company and the claimants deserve to be rejected. Misc. Appeals Nos. 2067/2010 and 847/2011 : Appeal No. 2067/2010 was filed by the claimants for enhancement of claims awarded by the MACT in claim case No. 266/07 ( 31/99). Appeal no. Thus the appeals filed by the insurance company and the claimants deserve to be rejected. Misc. Appeals Nos. 2067/2010 and 847/2011 : Appeal No. 2067/2010 was filed by the claimants for enhancement of claims awarded by the MACT in claim case No. 266/07 ( 31/99). Appeal no. 847/2011 was filed by the insurance company against he awarding of claims by the MACT in claim case No. 266/07 (31/99) on account of death of Heera Lal. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the insurance company and the claimants in relation to these two appeals filed in the claim Case No. 266/07 (31/99). As per the post mortem report the age of deceased was found to be 30 years and in the Ramchandra his was shown as 25 years and the claimants have not been able to produce any proof regarding his age and hence the MACT found that he was aged 20-25 and hence on this multiplier of 17 was rightly applied. The income of the deceased Heeralal was estimated to be Rs. 2400 per month. After deducting one third amount the yearly income was estimated to be Rs. 19,200/-. After multiplying Rs. 19,200 by 17 it comes to Rs. 3,26,400/-. The wife of the deceased was given Rs. 5,000/- for love and affection and his children and his father and mother were awarded Rs. 3,000/- each for loss of love and affection. For cremation the MACT awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-. In this manner total Rs. 3,48,400/- were awarded as compensation. The claimants are not entitled for any enhancement in the amount awarded by the MACT. The insurance company has not been able to point out any infirmity in the grant of Rs. 3,48,400/- to be payable to the claimants as compensation on account of death of Heeralal. Thus the appeals filed by the insurance company and the claimants deserve to be rejected. Misc. Appeals Nos. 2066/2010 and 749/2011 : Appeal No. 2066/2010 was filed by the claimants for enhancement of claims awarded by the MACT in claim case No. 265/07 ( 30/99). Appeal No. 749/2011 was filed by the insurance company against the awarding of claims by the MACT in claim case No. 265/07 (30/99) on account of death of Kedar. Misc. Appeals Nos. 2066/2010 and 749/2011 : Appeal No. 2066/2010 was filed by the claimants for enhancement of claims awarded by the MACT in claim case No. 265/07 ( 30/99). Appeal No. 749/2011 was filed by the insurance company against the awarding of claims by the MACT in claim case No. 265/07 (30/99) on account of death of Kedar. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the insurance company and the claimants in relation to these two appeals filed in the claim case No. 265/07 (30/99). As per the post mortem report the age of deceased was found to be 18 years and the claimants have been able to produce any proof regarding his age and hence the MACT found that he was aged 15-20 and hence on this multiplier of 16 was rightly applied. The income of the deceased Kedar was estimated to be Rs. 2400 per month. After deducting one third amount the yearly income was estimated to be Rs. 19,200/-. After multiplying Rs. 19,200 by 16 it comes to Rs. 3,07,200/-. The wife of the deceased was given Rs. 5,000/- for love and affection and his father and mother were awarded Rs. 3,000/- each for loss of love and affection. For medical treatment and going to Hospital the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 4,000/- For cremation the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. In this manner total Rs. 3,24,200/- were awarded as compensation. The claimants are not entitled for any enhancement in the amount awarded by the MACT. The insurance company has not been able to point out any infirmity in the grant of Rs. 3,24,200/- to be payable to the claimants as compensation on account of death of Kedar Singh. Thus the appeals filed by the insurance company and the claimants deserve to be rejected. Misc. Appeal No. 747/2011 : Appeal No. 747/2011 has been filed by the insurance company against the awarding of claims by the MACT in claim case No. 260/07 (25/99) on account of death of Tara sons of Smt. Shanti Devi and Shri Shitoli. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the insurance company. As per the post mortem report the age of deceased was found to be 11 years and he was not earning any thing. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the insurance company. As per the post mortem report the age of deceased was found to be 11 years and he was not earning any thing. As per the decisions of Mohammed Ishaq and others vs. Dhiraj and others (2007 RAR (Raj.) and Dheeraj and others 2006 tac 515 Smt. Sobhagyadevi and others vs. Sukhveer Singh and others 2006 RAR 591 (Raj.), Lalaram and others vs. Ganpat Lal and others (2005 RAR page 463 (Raj.) S.C. Mittal and others vs. Raj. state Road Transport Corporation, in which a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- was awarded as compensation, the mact awarded a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- as compensation. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT granting compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- as per the rulings cited above. Thus the appeal filed by the insurance company against the grant of compensation deserves to be rejected. Misc. Appeal No. 753/2011 : Appeal No. 753/2011 has been filed by the insurance company against the awarding of claims by the MACT in claim case No. 273/07 (69/99) on account of death of Rameshwar sons of Smt. Tejo and Shri Chhajalal. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the insurance company. As per the post mortem report the age of deceased was found to be 15 years and he was not earning any thing. The MACT estimated his age to be 15 years. As per the decisions of Mohammed Ishaq and others vs. Dhiraj and others (2007 rar (Raj.) and Dheeraj and others 2006 TAC 515, Smt. Sobhagyadevi and others vs. Sukhveer Singh and others 2006 RAR 591 (Raj.), Lalaram and others vs. Ganpat Lal and others (2005 RAR page 463 (Raj.) S.C. Mittal and others vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corporation, in which a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- was awarded as compensation, the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the claimants. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT granting compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- as per the rulings cited above. Thus the appeal filed by the insurance company against the grant of compensation deserves to be rejected. Misc. 2,25,000/- was awarded as compensation, the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the claimants. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT granting compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- as per the rulings cited above. Thus the appeal filed by the insurance company against the grant of compensation deserves to be rejected. Misc. Appeal No. 754/2011 : Appeal No. 754/2011 has been filed by the insurance company against the awarding of claims by the MACT in claim case No. 268/07 (33/99) on account of death of Kumari Oma daughter of Janki, claimant. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the insurance company. As per the post mortem report the age of Kumari Oma was found to be 10 years and she was not earning any thing. As per the decisions of Mohammed Ishaq and others vs. Dhiraj and others (2007 RAR (Raj.) and Dheeraj and others 2006 TAC 515, Smt. Sobhagyadevi and others vs. Sukhveer Singh and others 2006 RAR 591 (Raj.), Lalaram and others vs. Ganpat Lal and others (2005 RAR page 463 (Raj.) S.C. Mittal and others vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corporation, in which a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- was awarded as compensation, the mact awarded a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the claimant. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the mact granting compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- as per the rulings cited above. Thus the appeal filed by the insurance company against the grant of compensation deserves to be rejected. Misc. Appeal No. 755/2011 : Appeal No. 755/2011 has been filed by the insurance company against the awarding of claims by the MACT in claim case No. 270/07 (49/99) on account of death of Vijay Singh son of Smt. Chandravati and brother of Ajay Singh (minor) represented by Smt. Chandravati. I have considered the arguments of the counsel, for the insurance company. As per the post mortem report the age of deceased was found to be 14 years and he was not earning any thing. The MACT estimated his age to be less than 15 years. I have considered the arguments of the counsel, for the insurance company. As per the post mortem report the age of deceased was found to be 14 years and he was not earning any thing. The MACT estimated his age to be less than 15 years. As per the decisions of Mohammed Ishaq and others vs. Dhiraj and others (2007 RAR (Raj.) and Dheeraj and others 2006 TAC 515, Smt. Sobhagyadevi and others vs. Sukhveer Singh and others 2006 RAR 591 (Raj.), Lalaram and others vs. Ganpat Lal and others (2005 RAR page 463 (Raj.) S.C. Mittal and others vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corporation, in which a sum of Rs, 2,25,000/- was awarded as compensation the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the claimants. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT granting compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- as per the rulings cited above. Thus the appeal filed by the insurance company against the grant of compensation deserves to be rejected. Misc. Appeal No. 757/2011 : Appeal No. 757/2011 has been filed by the insurance company against the awarding of claims by the MACT in claim case No,, 264/07 (29/99) on account of death of Tara sons of Smt. Kamla and Shri Roop Singh. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the insurance company. As per the post mortem report the age of deceased Tara was found to be 16 years and he was not earning any thing. The MACT estimated his age 15 years. As per the decisions of Mohammed Ishaq and others vs. Dhiraj and others (2007 RAR (Raj.) and Dheeraj and others 2006 TAC 515, Smt. Sobhagyadevi and others vs. Sukhveer Singh and 2006 RAR 591 (Raj.), Lalaram and others vs. Lal and others (2005 RAR page 463 (Raj.) Mittal and others vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corporation, in which a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- was awarded as compensation and on this basis, the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the claimants. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT granting compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- as per the rulings cited above. Thus the appeal filed by the insurance company against the grant of compensation deserves to be rejected. Misc. Appeal No. 758/2011 : Appeal no. 2,25,000/- to the claimants. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT granting compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- as per the rulings cited above. Thus the appeal filed by the insurance company against the grant of compensation deserves to be rejected. Misc. Appeal No. 758/2011 : Appeal no. 758/2011 has been filed by the insurance company against the awarding of claims by the MACT in claim case No. 263/07 (28/99) to the claimants on account of death of Mohar sons of Smt. Somoti and Shri Tanti. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the insurance company. As per the post mortem report the age of deceased Mohar was found to be 18 years and as per the panchnama his age was found to be 14 years and he was not earning any thing. As per the decisions of Mohammed Ishaq and others vs. Dhiraj and others (2007 rar (Raj.) and Dheeraj and others 2006 TAC 515, Smt. Sobhagyadevi and others vs. Sukhveer Singh and others 2006 RAR 591 (Raj.), Lalaram and others vs. Ganpat Lal and others (2005 RAR page 463 (Raj.) S.C. Mittal and others vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corporation, in which a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- was awarded as compensation and on this basis the MACT awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/-to the claimants. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT granting compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- as per the rulings cited above. Thus the appeal filed by the insurance company against the grant of compensation deserves to be rejected. Misc. Appeal No. 768/2011 : Appeal No. 768/2011 has been filed by the insurance company against the awarding of claims by the MACT in claim case No. 267/07 (32/99) on account of death of Poonam daughter of Sunita, claimant. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the insurance company. As per the post mortem report the age of Poonam was found to be 8 years and she was not earning any thing. As per the decisions of Mohammed Ishaq and others vs. Dhiraj and others (2007 RAR (Raj.) and Dheeraj and others 2006 TAG 515, Smt. Sobhagyadevi and others vs. Sukhveer Singh and others 2006 RAR 591 (Raj.), Lalaram and others vs. Ganpat Lal and others (2005 RAR page 463 (Raj.) S.C. Mittal and others vs. Raj. As per the decisions of Mohammed Ishaq and others vs. Dhiraj and others (2007 RAR (Raj.) and Dheeraj and others 2006 TAG 515, Smt. Sobhagyadevi and others vs. Sukhveer Singh and others 2006 RAR 591 (Raj.), Lalaram and others vs. Ganpat Lal and others (2005 RAR page 463 (Raj.) S.C. Mittal and others vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corporation, in which a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- was awarded as compensation, the MACT awarded Rs. 2,25,000/- to the claimant. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT granting compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- as per the rulings cited above. Thus the appeal filed by the insurance company against the grant of compensation deserves to be rejected. Misc. Appeal No. 759/2011 : Appeal No. 759/2011 has been filed by the insurance company against the awarding of claims by the MACT in claim case No. 271/07 (50/99) on account of death her daughter Manju by the claimant Kishanpyari. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the insurance company. As per the post mortem report the age of Manju was found to be 10 years and she was not earning any thing. As per the decisions of Mohammed Ishaq and others vs. Dhiraj and others (2007 rar (Raj.) and Dheeraj and others 2006 tac 515, Smt. Sobhagyadevi and others vs. Sukhveer Singh and others 2006 RAR 591 (Raj.), Lalaram and others vs. Ganpat Lal and others (2005 RAR page 463 (Raj.) S.C. Mittal and others vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corporation, in which a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- was awarded as compensation, the MACT in this manner awarded a sum of Rs.2,25,000 to the claimant. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT granting compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- as per the rulings cited above. Thus the appeal filed by the insurance company against the grant of compensation deserves to be rejected. Misc. Appeal No. 746/2011 : Appeal No. 746/2011 has been filed by the insurance company against the awarding of claims by the MACT in claim case No. 275/07 (103/01) on account of injury received by Dulichand injured. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the insurance company. Injured Dulichand in his statement stated that he received the burns injuries and in the treatment he incurred 50-60 thousand rupees in it. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the insurance company. Injured Dulichand in his statement stated that he received the burns injuries and in the treatment he incurred 50-60 thousand rupees in it. The expenses bill has not been produced and disability certificate has also not been produced. Since the injured received burns injuries, looking his injuries the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. It is an admitted fact that the injured Dulichand received injuries in the fire but since the medical expenses and disability certificate etc. were not produced the MACT looking to his injuries awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. This amount was rightly awarded and the appeal filed by the insurance company deserves to be rejected. Misc. Appeal No. 2623/2011 : Appeal No. 2623/2011 has been filed by the insurance company against the awarding of claims by the MACT in claim case No. 277/07 (106/01) on account of injury received by Om Prakash injured. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the insurance company. Injured Om Prakash stated in his statement that he received burn injuries and admitted in Hospital from 2.12.98 to 23.1.99 in Govt. Bharatpur Hospital. He was also operated and plastic surgery was done. He stated that Rs. 20,000 were incurred by him. He also produced disability certificate showing two percent disability. On the basis of injuries received by him and disability certificate the mact awarded Rs. 30,000/- as compensation. It is an admitted fact that the injured Om Prakash received injuries in the fire but since the medical expenses were not produced the MACT looking to his injuries awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/-, This amount was rightly awarded and the appeal filed by the insurance company deserves to be rejected. Misc. Appeal No. 756/2011 : Appeal No. 756/2011 has been filed by the Insurance company against the awarding of claims by the MACT in claim case No. 274/07 (102/01) on account of injury received by Bhagwan Singh. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the insurance company. Injured Bhagwan Singh stated in his statement that he received burn injuries and admitted, in Bharatpur Hospital on 2.12.98 and refer-to SMS Jaipur and admitted on 3.12.98 and remained at SMS upto 23.12.98. Again admitted in the Hospital on 1.1.99 and remained in the Hospital upto 17.2.99. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the insurance company. Injured Bhagwan Singh stated in his statement that he received burn injuries and admitted, in Bharatpur Hospital on 2.12.98 and refer-to SMS Jaipur and admitted on 3.12.98 and remained at SMS upto 23.12.98. Again admitted in the Hospital on 1.1.99 and remained in the Hospital upto 17.2.99. He stated that in the treatment he incurred expenses in the amount of Rs. 45,000/-. He produced disability showing his disability 32.17. The mact determined his monthly income Rs. 2400/- per month and looking to his 20-25 years multiplier of 17 was applied for awarding compensation on account of disability. In this manner a sum of Rs. 1,57,504 was awarded. For mental agony a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded. For transportation etc. Rs. 6,000/- was awarded. In all Rs. 1,73,504 was awarded to the claimant as compensation. This amount was rightly awarded and the appeal filed by the insurance company deserves to be rejected. 11. For these reasons the appeals filed by the insurance company and the appeals filed by claimants being devoid of merits stand rejected. The award passed by the MACT in claim cases Nos. 259/07 (24/99), 260/07 (25/99), 261/07 (26/99), 262/07 (27/99), 263/07 (28/99), 264/07 (29/99), 265/07 (30/99), 266/07 (31/99), 267/07 (32/99), 268/07 (33/99), 269/07 (48/99), 270/07 (49/99), 271/07 (50/99), 272/07 (68/99), 273/07 (69/99), 274/07 (102/2001), 275/07 (103/2001), 277/07 (106/2001) The MACT is directed to make payment of the claim amount to the claimants as per the award passed by the MACT. The stay orders passed if any stand vacated. The stay applications also stand dismissed.