Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Since these four misc. appeals relate to common award dated 28.6.2008 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi, in MACT Cases Nos. 7/2004, 159/2004, 31/2004, 158/2004, they are being disposed by this common judgment. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. Facts in brief are that on 10.10.2003 at about 11.15 p.m. when Dilip Singh, Rajendra Singh, Shailang Thakor, Ashish thakor were coming to Bundi in a Maruti Van No. RJ 20 C 4294 then the driver and owner of the said vehicle Sanjay Chopra hit the van to a standing truck near the Railway Pulia. On account of the said accident, Dilip Singh and Sailang Thakor died and Rajendra Singh and Ashish Thakor received grievous injuries. The said accident occurred due to negligence of the driver and owner of the said Van and, therefore, they claimed heavy compensation. 4. The Insurance Company filed reply to the claim petition stating therein that the Maruti Van No. RJ 20 C 4294 was insured as a private vehicle and no premium was charged for any passenger/occupant sitting in the vehicle and at the time of accident, the vehicle was used as a passenger carrying vehicle. The insurance company and owner of the other vehicle involved in the accident i.e. truck were not impleaded as party. The insurance company in the matter has issued only policy for Act liability for the Maruti Van, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. Mr. Inderjeet Singh, learned counsel for the insurance company argued that the MACT has erred in not considering this aspect of the matter that the Maruti Van was insured for third party by the Insurance Company and policy for Act liability only was issued. The Insurance Company has not charged any premium for the passengers/ occupants sitting in the Maruti Van. The owner and Insurance Co. of the other vehicle i.e. truck were not made party in the claim petition despite the specific objection taken by the appellant and no finding has been given by the MACT with regard to contributory negligence. The learned counsel relied on the case of TV Jose vs. Chacko PM reported in 2001 Vol. L SCC 748, and Oriental Insurance Co. vs. Meena Varial and others reported in 2007 Vol. The learned counsel relied on the case of TV Jose vs. Chacko PM reported in 2001 Vol. L SCC 748, and Oriental Insurance Co. vs. Meena Varial and others reported in 2007 Vol. V. SCC 428 and National Insurance Co. vs. Kusum Raj reported in 2006 Vol. VI SCC 250. 6. The learned counsel for the claimants and the learned counsel for the driver of the vehicle opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and they have stated that the award passed by the MACT is just and proper and the same does not call for any interference by this Court in the appeals filed by the insurance company. 7. The crux of the arguments of the Insurance Company is with regard to issues 4, 5, 6 and 7. One more objection raised by the counsel for the insurance company is with regard to contributory negligence. In the claim petition the owner and insurance company of the Truck were not impleaded as parties to the claim petition. 8. 7. The crux of the arguments of the Insurance Company is with regard to issues 4, 5, 6 and 7. One more objection raised by the counsel for the insurance company is with regard to contributory negligence. In the claim petition the owner and insurance company of the Truck were not impleaded as parties to the claim petition. 8. In relation to issues 4, 5 and 6 the MACT observed as under : ^^ek:fr osu esa ;k=k djus okys e`rdx.k fnyhiflag] 'ksykax Bkjsdksj o vkgrx.k jktsUnzdqekj o vk'kh"k Bkdksj ls pkjks fdjk;k nsdj cSBs gks] ;g vfHkys[k ij ugha gSA fdlh Hkh xokg us bl rF; dh iqf"V ugha dh gSA ,-M-04 vk'kh"k Bkdksj ek:fr osu esa cSBdj ;k=k djus okyk vkgr gS] mlus vius l'kiFk dFkuksa esa ;g crk;k gS fd ek:fr okyk nksLr Fkk] blfy, iSls ugha fy;sA ,u-,-M- 01 izHkqyky ?kVuk ds le; ekSds ij mifLFkr ugha Fkk] blfy, mlds dFku ds vk/kkj ij ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd izkFkhZx.k fdjk;s nsdj cSBs gksA bl izdkj leLr lk{; ds fo'ys"k.k ls ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZx.k fdjk;k nsdj ugha cSBs FksA fe= dh dkj ysdj vk jgs FksA 2006 ,lhts ist 2124 vksfj;aVy ba';ksjsal da- fy-@oUnuk oxS- esa ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd ^^izkbZosV dkj esa okgu Lokeh ds fe= o fj'rsnkj ;k=k dj ldrs gSA bl okgu dk mi;ksx izkbZosV gh ekuk tkosxkA ;g Mcy csUp dk fofu'p; gSA 2008¼1½ ,e-,-lh-Mh- ¼,e-ih-½ ist 152 us'kuy ba';ksjsal da- fy- c`tyky oxS- ds ekeys esa ekuuh; e/;izns'k mPp U;k;ky; us ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd ^^chek dEiuh }kjk ikWfylh esa izkbosV dkj esa tks r`rh; i{kdkj ds :i esa fizfe;e olwy fd;k x;k gS og dkj esa cSBus okys leLr ;kf=;ksa ds fy, gS ;g ekuk tk;sxk rFkk bl fofu'p; esa okgu esa bUlksjsUl dk oxhZdj.k izLrqr fd;k gS blds vuqlkj izkbZosV dkj 1000 lhlh rd gS] blds vuqlkj 670 fizfe;e fy;k x;k gS rks 500 o 9 tks fizfe;e r`rh; i{kdkj ds uke ls fy;k gSA mldk vFkZ ;g gS fd ml dkj esa cSBdj ;k=k djus okys ;kf=;ksa dh Hkh fjLd doj gSA orZeku ekeys esa ,y-,-M- 1 izHkqyky chek dEiuh dh vksj ls izLrqr gqvk gSA vkSj mlus izfrijh{k.k esa ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd ikWfylh esa izkbZosV ;wt fy[kk gS ikWfylh esa 500@] 25@ o 50@ :i;s fizfe;e fy;k x;k gS ;s fdl en esa fy;k x;k gS] blds fy, doj uksV esa vadu ugha fd;k x;k gS izn'kZ ,1 ds vuqlkj r`rh; i{kdkj dk fizfe;e 500@ :i;s fy;k gS vkSj okgu Lokeh o pkyd dk vyx fizfe;e 100@ :i;s fy;k gS deZdkj dk 25@ :i;s fy;k gSA ;g dkj Hkh 1000 lhlh ls de dh gS dsoy 800 lhlh dh gS vkSj blesa tks 500 fizfe;e fy;k gS og r`rh; i{kdkj o dkj esa cSBus okys ds fy, fy;k x;k gSA mä fofu'p; o orZeku ekeys ds rF; feyrs tqyrs gS blesa ;k=k djus okys ;kf=;ksa ds fy, fizfe;e fy;k gS tks okgu Lokeh ds fe= o fj'rsnkj gSA blfy, chek dEiuh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, mÙkjnk;h gS ,-lh-Vh-lh- 2007¼1½ vksfj;UVy ba';ksjsal da- fy-@fryd flag ds rF; orZeku ekeys ls fHkUu gS blfy, bu fofu'p;ksa dk ykHk chek dEiuh dks ugha feyrkA vr% chek dEiuh {kfriwfrZ ds fy, mÙkjnk;h gS] blds vykok vU; fdlh vkifÙk ds ckjs esa vizkFkhZx.k dh lk{; ugha vkbZ gS blfy, vU; vkifÙk izekf.kr ugha gks ikbZ gSA okgu Vªd la[;k vkjts 19@1 lh 4333 dks i{kdkj cukus dk tgka rd iz'u gS bldh vko';drk ugha gSA D;ksa fd Vªd [kM+k gqvk Fkk vkSj mlds pkydh dh ykijokgh ugha FkhA iqfyl us vuqla/kku ds i'pkr~ Vªd pkyd o lHkh ds fo:) dksbZ pktZ'khV Hkh izLrqr ugha dh gS vr% vizkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls mBkbZ xbZ dksbZ vkifÙk izekf.kr ugha gks ikbZ gSA vr% fook+|d la[;k 4] 5 o 6 chek dEiuh vizkFkhZ 2 ds fo:0 rFkk izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa blh izdkj r; fd;s tkrs gSA 9. After considering the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and the material produced by the parties, the MACT came to the conclusion that the persons traveled in the Maruti Van have not paid any fare and they were traveling as friend, the vehicle owner paid the premium, and on following the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rightly came to be conclusion that the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation. the owner and insurance company of the truck standing were rightly not made parties to the claim petition as the truck was standing. There cannot be any question of contributory negligence on the part of the truck. The cases relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the facts of these cases. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT. The findings on issues 4, 5 and 6 arrived at by the MACT deserve to be confirmed. 10. In relation to issue No.7 the insurance company has not been able to prove that the persons traveling in the Van were in drunken stage. This issue was rightly decided in favour of the claimants. 11. In view of the above the misc. appeals Nos. 4052, 2053, 2054 and 3911 of 2008 filed by appellant Insurance Company against the award dated 28.6.2008 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bundi Jaipur in MACT cases Nos. 7/2004, 159/2004, 31/2004, 158/2004 being devoid of merit stand rejected. The award stands confirmed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.