Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Since all these misc. appeals and objections relate to common award dated 9.8.1996 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karauli (in short, MACT) in MACT Cases Nos. 61/1999, 16/1999, 69/1999, 25/1999 and 92/1999, they are being disposed by this common judgment. 2. It may be mentioned that against the common award dated 9.8.1996 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karauli in MACT Case No. 59/1999, the appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. filed S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 142/2002 against Jaganlal and Ors. and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.1.2002 dismissed the appeal and passed the following order : "The appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. has challenged the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Karauli by which a compensation of Rs. 35,000/- only has been awarded to the claimants-respondents on account of the injury sustained by him in an accident in which one person had also died. Considering the nature and injury, the award cannot be said to be suffering in any manner and hence, this appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/- (Rs. Five Hundred) since the Insurance Company has sought to mislead this Court and wasted its time with lengthy arguments by urging that the vehicle which caused the accident was not at fault although it later transpired that there is no iota of evidence to that effect." 3. The facts have been set out in the impugned award and hence, I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 4. The facts in brief are that the injured claimants and deceased were traveling in Bus No. RJ-25-P-0349 from Gangapur to Karauli. The vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver Ramchandar and that due to this reason the bus opposite direction due to this accident the claimants sustained injuries and one Ramesh died. 5. The Insurance company submitted its written statement denying the factum of accident for want of knowledge including the income of the deceased and injured claimants. Further contention of the insurance company was to the effect that though the vehicle in question bearing No. RJ-25-P-0349 was insured with the company but the driver was not having a valid licence and that the owner of the said vehicle was not having a valid permit for the route to drive the vehicle. There was breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. There was breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The MACT on the pleadings of the parties and documents on record framed 5 issues. Issue No.1 related to the factum of the accident. Issue No.2 was framed as to whether the driver of the above bus was under the employment of the owner of the vehicle and working for him. Issue No.3 related to the quantum of compensation if any, payable to respective claimants. Issue No.4 was framed relating to the aspect as to whether the objections raised by the insurance company were of substance and if so, the effect thereof. The issue No.5 related to relief. The insured claimants had adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. On behalf of the insurance company one witness NAW 1 Babulal Meena Junior Clerk, Transport Office at Karauli was examined. The MACT vide its award dated 22.1.2001 decided all the issues in favour of the claimants and held that the defendants were jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation to the respective claimants. The MACT further directed for payment of compensation within 2 months along with interest @ 12% per annum failing which the claimants were entitled to award amount with interest @ 18% per annum till the date of realisation. 6. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that the MACT has seriously erred in not taking into consideration the contributory negligence of the driver of the another bus, which was coming from the opposite side. 100% negligence on the part of insured vehicle should not be fastened. It may be a case of apportionment of 60% and 40% negligence or so. The learned counsel has further urged that no sufficient evidence was led by the claimants in respect of income and losses under various heads of compensation. It was not proved that the driver of the truck was having a valid licence at the time of the accident and was driving the vehicle under the employment and permission of the owner of the vehicle. The evidence of Junior Accountant on behalf of the insurance company was not properly appreciated. The owner of the insured bus did not inform the appellant company about the alleged accident, which amounts to clear breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. In support of his arguments Mr. S.R. Joshi has placed reliance on Oriental Insurance Co. The evidence of Junior Accountant on behalf of the insurance company was not properly appreciated. The owner of the insured bus did not inform the appellant company about the alleged accident, which amounts to clear breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. In support of his arguments Mr. S.R. Joshi has placed reliance on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Narinder Kaur & Ors. 2002 ACJ 1116 ; R. Balanarasamma & Ors. vs. K. Ramakrishna Reddy & Ors., 1999 ACJ 606; National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Keshav Bahadur & Ors. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. C.M. Jaya & Ors. (2002) 2 SCC 278 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kathilal & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6959 of 1994 decided on 21.1.1999, and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. N.M. Annakutty & Ors. 1997 ACJ 1121. 7. Mr. L.L. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the claimants has contended that the MACT considered each and every thing while holding the bus driver guilty. The award passed by the MACT cannot be said to be unjust. The co-ordinate Bench of this court affirmed the findings arrived at by the MACT and the said finding has not been challenged by the Insurance Company and he said judgment has become final. The ratio in the said judgment is fully applicable to this case. The learned counsel fro the claimants has further contended that the cross-objections filed in appeals No.1291/2002 and 1289/2002 may be considered and the compensation may be enhanced. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival contentions and the award passed by the MACT and material on record. 9. Before proceeding further it would be necessary to have a look at he rulings cited by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Narinder Kaur & Ors. (supra), was the case of composite negligence as it was head-on collusion between a truck and car coming from opposite directions resulting in death of an occupant of car and several others sustained injuries and the Tribunal held drivers of both the vehicles are equally responsible for causing accident. 11. R. Balanarasamma & Ors. vs. K. Ramakrishna Reddy & Anr. (supra) was also a case of composite negligence. 12. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Keshav Bahadur & Ors. (supra), the Apex Court, directed for interest @ 9% per annum. 11. R. Balanarasamma & Ors. vs. K. Ramakrishna Reddy & Anr. (supra) was also a case of composite negligence. 12. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Keshav Bahadur & Ors. (supra), the Apex Court, directed for interest @ 9% per annum. The Apex Court held that once discretion has been exercised by the Tribunal awarding simple interest, there is no scope for retrospective enhancement but the insurer cannot withhold the awarded amount indefinitely. 13. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. C.M. Jaya & Ors. (supra) the Apex Court held that insurance policy not taking any higher liability by accepting a higher premium for payment of compensation to a third party, the insurer held liable only to the extent limited u/Sec. 95(2) and not liable to pay the entire amount of compensation. 14. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. N.M. Annakutty & Ors. (supra) was related to limit of liability of insurance company. 15. Now I may consider the findings arrived at the MACT and the arguments of both the parties on the basis of the rulings cited by the counsel for the appellant. 16. 14. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. N.M. Annakutty & Ors. (supra) was related to limit of liability of insurance company. 15. Now I may consider the findings arrived at the MACT and the arguments of both the parties on the basis of the rulings cited by the counsel for the appellant. 16. The issues framed by the MACT, reads as under : ^^1- D;k foi{kh la[;k 2 o 5 iz'uxr okgu la[;k vkjts 25@ih 0349 o vkjts 025@ih 0043 dks fnukad 31-8-98 dks jkeiqj unh ds ikl xaxkiqj jksM t;iqj vis{kk@mrkoysiu ls pykdj jes'k dqekj dh e`R;q dkfjr dh ,oa jkejkt] txu] 'kdqaryk] v'kjQh] cPpwflag] fnfXot;flag] nhun;ky dks ?kk;y fd;kA 2- D;k foi{kh pkyd iz'uxr okgu dks nq?kZVuk ds le; okgu dks okgu Lokeh 1] 4 o 6 ds fu;kstu esa gksdj mlh ds fgrkFkZ ;k mudh lgefr ls@ tkudkjh ls pyk jgk Fkk\ 3- nkosnkj@nkosnkjku~ nkok@nkokvksa esa U;k;lEefr izdkj dh fdruh fdruh {kfriwfrZ jkf'k fdl fdl foi{kh ls fdl fdl izdkj izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS\ 4- D;k foi{kh chek dEiuh fyf[kr dFku dh izkjafHkd@fo'ks"k dFku dh vkifÙk;k¡ lkFkZd gS] ;fn gka rks budk D;k izHkko gksxk\ 5- vuqrks"k\ 17- The MACT in relation to issue No.1 in the findings recorded by it held as under : ^^bu rudhgkr dks fl) djus dk Hkkj izkFkhZx.k ij Fkk] mudh vksj ls bl nq?kZVuk dks fl) djus ds fy, lHkh 8 izkFkhZx.k us vius vius c;ku djk;s gSA bu lHkh xokgku us viuh lk{; esa crk;k gS fd cl vkjts 25@ih 0349 xaxkiqj ls djkSyh dh rjQ vk jgh Fkh ftldk MªkbZoj cl dks rsth ,oa ykijokgh ls pyk jgk Fkk rFkk cl la[;k vkjts 25@ih 0043 ls ,sDlhMsaV dj fn;k] mUgksaus crk;k fd cl la[;k 43 viuh lkbZM ls py jgh Fkh rFkk mldh LihM Hkh /kheh Fkh] cl la[;k 349 us rst xfr ls jksax lkbZM esa tkdj VDdj ekjh gSA eSaus bu lHkh xokgku~ dh lk{; dks /;kuiwoZd i<+k gS] bu lHkh xokgku~ us viuh lk{; esa ,slk dksbZ rF; ugha crk;k gS ftlls fd mudh lk{; ij vfo'okl fd;k tk ldsA bl lk{; ds fo:) foi{khx.k dh dksbZ lk{; ugha gS] foi{khx.k la[;k 1 o 2 dks bl okgu la- vkjts 25@ih 0349 dk Lokeh ,oa MªkbZoj gksuk crk;k x;k gS] bu nksuksa us vius cpko esa crk;k gS fd okgu la[;k vkjts 25@ih 0043 dks mldk pkyd rsth ls pyk jgk Fkk] jkepan us mls ns[kdj viuh cl dks viuh lkbZM esa lM+d NksM+rs gq, can dj yh o iVjh ls mrkj fy;k fdUrq cl la[;k vkjts 25@ih 0043 ds pkyd us rsth o ykijokgh ls cl dks pykrs gq, xyr lkbM esa vkdj cl dks VDdj ekjh gSA bldks izekf.kr djus ds fy;s iqfyl us ?kVukLFky dk uD'kk ekSdk cuk;k gS] bl uD'ksa esa Li"V :i ls crk;k x;k fd cl uEcj vkjts 25@ih 0349 dkQh rsth o ykijokgh ls py jgh Fkh] mlus jksax lkbZM esa vkdj VDdj ekjh gS] uD'kk tks iqfyl us cuk;k gS mlls izekf.kr gksrk gS fd jksax lkbZM esa tkdj VDdj ekjh gS] lHkh xokgku~ us viuh lk{; esa Li"V :i ls crk;k gS fd cl la[;k 349 dh ykijokgh ds dkj.k ;g nq?kZVuk dkfjr gqbZ gSA** 18. The MACT further held as under : ^^fjdkMZ ij tks lk{; gS mlls izekf.kr gksrk gS fd ;g nq?kZVuk cl la[;k vkjts 25@ih 0349 ds MªkbZoj dh xQyr ,oa ykjokgh ds dkj.k gqbZ gS] rFkk blls va'knk;h ykijokgh ds rF; fl) ugha gksrs gS] foi{kh la[;k 1 o 2 us vius rF;ksa dks IyhM Hkh ugha fd;k gS vkSj va'knk;h ykijokgh dks fl) ugha fd;k gSA foi{kh Øe 1 o 2 dh va'knk;h ykijokgh gh fl) gksrh gS rFkk okgu okgu la[;k vkjts 25@ih 0349 ds pkyd dh ykijokgh gh fl) gksrh gSA bl izdkj ;g rufd;k esa izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa foi{khx.k ds fo:) r; djrk gwaA** 19. The MACT considered the statements of the claimants and held that it was on account of negligent driving of the vehicle No. RJ 25 P 0349 that the accident took place. As against this the non-claimants have not produced any evidence that the accident was caused by composite negligence. The MACT also considered the Naksa Moka prepared by he police that it was only on account of negligence of the driver of the vehicle No. RJ 25 P 0349 that the accident took place. This finding of the MACT was earlier considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and held that it was only account of negligence of the driver of the vehicle RJ 25 P 0349 that the accident took place. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT regarding issues 1 and 2 coupled with the fact that this finding was also considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and I am also in agreement with that finding. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has not produced any judgment reversing the aforesaid finding. Thus the findings on issues 1 and 2 are confirmed. Thus the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the appellants that the accident took place on account of composite negligence cannot be taken into consideration in this case. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the accident took place on account of composite negligence cannot be taken into consideration in this case. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is thus rejected. This finding of the MACT cannot be said to be unjust. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the accident took place on account of composite negligence cannot be taken into consideration in this case. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is thus rejected. This finding of the MACT cannot be said to be unjust. In relation to grant of interest @ 18 per cent per annum in case the said sum is not deposited within a period of two months. The Apex Court though depreciated the practice of granting 18 percent interest in the case the amount is not deposited with the MACT within the stipulate time. But at the same time the Apex Court took the view that the insurance company cannot withhold the amount indefinitely. I have considered this argument also. The insurance company should not indefinitely withhold the amount awarded by the MACT. Thus the argument of the learned counsel in this respect is also rejected. 20. Now I may come to the findings on other issues in the claim petitions. SBCMA 1289/2002 & Cross-Objection No. 66/2003 21. SBCMA 1289/2002 has been filed by the insurance company for quashing the common award in the claim case No. 25/1999. I have gone through the arguments raised by the appellant insurance company in the appeal. I have also gone through the common award in relation to Ramraj claimant. Ramraj in his claim petition claimed amount in the sum of Rs. 33,25,400/-. He produced Ex.43 in relation to his disability on account of various injuries received by him. The MACT considering the injuries and disability 5.4% awarded in lump sum Rs. 45,000/-. This amount cannot be said to be unjustified. I have also considered the arguments raised by the claimant in his cross-objection. The MACT granted a lump sum amount of Rs. 45,000/- for the injuries received by the claimant and suffering 5.4% disability. Only by disability of 5.4% loss of earning has already been included in the lump sum amount by the MACT. I am in agreement with that finding. This amount cannot be said to be unjust. Thus the appeal filed by the insurance company and the cross-objection filed by the claimant deserve to be rejected. The appeal and the cross-objection both are rejected. The award in this respect is confirmed. SBCMA 1291/2002 & Cross-Objection No. 68/2003 22. I am in agreement with that finding. This amount cannot be said to be unjust. Thus the appeal filed by the insurance company and the cross-objection filed by the claimant deserve to be rejected. The appeal and the cross-objection both are rejected. The award in this respect is confirmed. SBCMA 1291/2002 & Cross-Objection No. 68/2003 22. SBCMA 1291/2002 has been filed by the insurance company for quashing the common award in the claim case No. 92/1999. I have gone through the arguments raised by the appellant insurance company in the appeal. I have also gone through the common award in relation to Deendayal claimant. Deendayal disability certificate showing that he suffered disability upto 45%. Looking to the disability the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- and Rs. 3000/- for the medical bills produced by him. The MACT considering the injuries and 45% disability awarded in lump sum Rs. 1,20,000/-. This amount cannot be said to be unjustified. I have also considered the arguments raised by the claimant in his cross-objection. The MACT granted a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- for the injuries received by the claimant and 45% disability and on account of medical expenses Rs. 3000/-. This amount cannot be said to be unjust. Thus the appeal filed by the insurance company and the cross-objection filed by the claimant deserve to be rejected. The appeal and the cross-objection both are rejected. The award in this respect is confirmed. SBCMA 1290/2002 23. SBCMA 1290/2002 has been filed by the insurance company for quashing the common award in the claim case No. 16/1999. I have also gone through the common award in relation to death of Ramesh filed by his father and his wife Rameshi and his son Jagdish through his mother. The MACT on the bsis of post mortem report determined age of Ramesh 22 year. As the claimants have not produced any proof regarding his income, the MACT on the basis of minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act as a labour determined his income to be Rs. 60/- per day. Out of which Rs. 20/- was deducted to be incurred on himself. This amount awarded by the MACT cannot be said to be unjust. The claimants have not filed any cross-objection looking to the award amount granted to them. Thus the appeal filed by the insurance company deserves to be rejected. The appeal is rejected. 60/- per day. Out of which Rs. 20/- was deducted to be incurred on himself. This amount awarded by the MACT cannot be said to be unjust. The claimants have not filed any cross-objection looking to the award amount granted to them. Thus the appeal filed by the insurance company deserves to be rejected. The appeal is rejected. The award in this respect is confirmed. SBCMA 1292/2002 24. SBCMA 1292/2002 has been filed by the insurance company for quashing the common award in the claim Case No. 69/1999. I have gone through the arguments raised by the appellant insurance company in the appeal. I have also gone through the common award in relation to Bachhu Singh. Looking to the injury received by Bachhu Singh of Pelvic and right clevion, the MACT awarded Rs. 15,000/-. This amount cannot be said to be unjustified. The claimant has not filed any appeal or cross-objection for enhancing the claim amount. This amount cannot be said to be unjust. Thus the appeal filed by the insurance company deserves to be rejected. The appeal is rejected. The award in this respect is confirmed. SBCMA 1239/2002 25. SBCMA 1239/2002 has been filed by the insurance company for quashing the common award in the claim Case No. 69/1999. I have gone through the arguments raised by the appellant insurance company in the appeal. I have also gone through the common award in relation to Digvijay Singh. Looking to the disability the MACT awarded a sum of Rs. 55,000/-. The MACT considering the injuries and 12% disability awarded in lump sum Rs. 55,000/-. This amount cannot be said to be unjustified. The claimant has not filed any appeal or cross-objection for enhancing the claim amount. This amount cannot be said to be unjust. Thus the appeal filed by the insurance company deserves to be rejected. The appeal is rejected. The award in this respect is confirmed. 26. The other issues decided by the MACT were not seriously opposed by the counsel for the insurance company. Even before the MACT the insurance company has not produced any evidence and hence the issues were decided in favour of the claimants. The findings on other issues are also confirmed. 27. For the reasons and the findings mentioned above, misc. appeals Nos. 1289/2002, 1291/2002, 1290/2002, 1292/2002 and 1239/2002 and cross-objection Nos. Even before the MACT the insurance company has not produced any evidence and hence the issues were decided in favour of the claimants. The findings on other issues are also confirmed. 27. For the reasons and the findings mentioned above, misc. appeals Nos. 1289/2002, 1291/2002, 1290/2002, 1292/2002 and 1239/2002 and cross-objection Nos. 66/2003 and 68/2003 filed by the claimants in the appeals filed by the insurance company, fail and are hereby rejected. The common award dt. 22.1.2001 passed by MACT, Karauli in claim petitions Nos. 61/1999, 16/1999, 69/1999, 25/1999 and 99/1999 stands confirmed. The stay applications also stand rejected. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.