Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—Since these six misc. appeals relate to common award dated 31.1.2008 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar in MACT cases Nos. 212/2001, 223/2001, 224/2001, 258/2001, 342/2002, 124/2002, 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 11.8.2001, Gumanaram, Sitaram, Raghunath Prasad, Hanumanaram, Rampal and Pannalal were travelling in Jeep No. RJ 23 C 0864 and when they reached near Bus Stand Badalwas in Sikar District, Suddenly Tractor No. RJ 21R 7005 came from the front side in a rash and negligent manner hit the Jeep. In the accident Gumanaram, Sitaram and Raghunath Prasad suffered injuries and Hanumanaram, Rampal and Panna Lal died. Six claim petitions were filed. All the claim petitions were clubbed together and decided by the common award dated 31.1.2008. 4. The respondents 4 and 5,who are driver and owner of the Tractor have filed a written statement. It the written statement it was stated that there is no negligence of the Tractor and the Tractor was standing in a stationary condition on the side-by of the road and it was negligence of the jeep driver, which resulted into accident. 5. The Insurance Company filed reply to the claim petition and categorically denied the averments of the claim petitions and preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the claim petition was raised. It was submitted that no information was given either by the claimant or by the owners of both the vehicles to the appellant company regarding accident. It was stated that in the absence of valid and effective driving licence and the permit to ply the vehicle the appellant company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants for the violation so done by the owner of both the vehicles contrary to the provisions of the Act and the breach of policy conditions. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties three issues were framed by the MACT. The claimants produced 8 witnesses and exhibited 180 documents. On behalf of the insurance company statements of Ranveer Singh and Rakesh Sharma were recorded. After hearing the arguments the MACT allowed the claim petitions vide the common award dated 31.1.2008 different compensations were awarded to the claimants. 7. The claimants produced 8 witnesses and exhibited 180 documents. On behalf of the insurance company statements of Ranveer Singh and Rakesh Sharma were recorded. After hearing the arguments the MACT allowed the claim petitions vide the common award dated 31.1.2008 different compensations were awarded to the claimants. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance company argued that the MACT passed the award dated 31.8.2008 without considering the principles of natural justice in which the relevant proposition of public policy for plying the vehicle at a public place as defined in section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act has not been taken note. The appellant insurance company raised a specific defence to the effect that the vehicle in which the claimants were travelling i.e. the jeep was equally negligent in the present case. It was evident from the exhibited documents itself that in the night time the vehicle jeep was being driven in a very low beem lights and moreover in a great speed and depsite warning and request being made to the driver of the said vehicle plied the jeep in a negligent manner, as a result of which the said accident has occurred. The MACT while deciding issue No. 1 has not taken into consideration the important aspect of the fact that the driver of the jeep was also charge sheeted as per Ex. 2. The MACT while deciding issue No. 1 seriously crept into error of law in not taking into consideration the aspect that the another vehicle i.e. the jeep on the record was also proved to be equally negligent but the manner in which the MACT decided issue No. 1 merely relying upon the site plan and the observations made to this effect are totally contrary to the provisions of law and the finding given to the effect that head on colusion between the vehicle is totally contrary to the material available on record. The learned counsel for the insurance company placed reliance on Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs. Bidyadhar Dutta and others 2006(1) Western Law Cases (SC) Civil 757 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Roshanben vs. Rahemansha Fakir and another (2008) (3) TAC 20 (SC) = 2009(1) CCR 20 (SC). 8. The learned counsel for the insurance company placed reliance on Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs. Bidyadhar Dutta and others 2006(1) Western Law Cases (SC) Civil 757 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Roshanben vs. Rahemansha Fakir and another (2008) (3) TAC 20 (SC) = 2009(1) CCR 20 (SC). 8. The learned counsel for the claimants 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. 9. First I may consider the findings of the MACT on issue No. 1 and the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company on issue No. 1. 9. First I may consider the findings of the MACT on issue No. 1 and the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company on issue No. 1. On issue No. 1 the MACT gave the following findings: ^^bl laca/k esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ izn'kZ 1 ds lkFk lkFk pktZ'khV izn'kZ 2 izLrqr gqbZ gSA izn'kZ 1 izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ :ipUn uked O;fDr }kjk ntZ djokbZ xbZ Fkh] ftlus thi pkyd dk Hkh rst xfr ls pykuk] thi dh ykbZV de gksuk o muds }kjk euk djus ij Hkh rst pykuk vafdr djok;k Fkk] fdUrq mlus ;g Hkh vafdr djok;k fd VsDVj esa ls ikbZi ckgj fudys gq, Fks ,oa og Hkh ykijokgh vkMk Vs<+k pyk jgk FkkA mlds vuqlkj nksuksa gh ykijokgh ls pyk jgs Fks o vkil esa VDdjk x;sA iqfyl }kjk vuqla/kku ds i'pkr~ nksuksa Mªkbojksa ;kfu thi pkyd lhrkjke o VªsDVj pkyd enuyky ds fo:) pkyku is'k fd;s x;s gS tks vUoh{kk ds izØe ij QkStnkjh U;k;ky; esa yafcr gSA bl laca/k esa bl vf/kdj.k ds le{k ifjoknh :ipan dks izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS o lHkh p{kqn'khZ lkf{k;ksa us VªsDVj pkyd dh xyrh o ykijokgh gksuk dgk gS o mudh lk{; izfrijh{kk ds nkSjku [kf.Mr ugha gqbZ gSA ;g lgh gS fd lk{kh vius fgr ds fy, xyr c;kuh dj ldrs gS] fdUrq ifjfLFkfr;ka >qB ugha cksyrhA bl ekeys esa VªsDVj dk yksly ls lhdj vkuk o thi lhdj ls yksly tkuk lHkh us dgk gS o uD'kk eksDdk izn'kZ 3 esa ^,Dl* LFkku ij VDdj gksuk ik;k x;k gSA mDr ^,Dl* LFkku lM+d ds yxHkx chp esa gSa] fdUrq dksbZ Hkh ,slh lk{; ugha gS ftlls ;g dgk tkos fd nks okguksa esa Head on Collusion gqvk gSA Li"V gS fd izn'kZ 3 uD'kk ekSdk ds vk/kkj ij gh dksbZ fu.kZ; ugha fudkyk tk ldrk] fdUrq bl rF; dks Hkh vuns[kk ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd VªsDVj o mldh Vªksyh vkxs o ihNs yksgs ds yEcs ikbZiksa ls Hkjs gq, Fks] tks fd Lo;a pkyd dh ykijokgh dks n'kkZrk gSA fQj thi VsªsDVj Vªksyh dh rqyuk esa gYdk okgu gS o yksgs ds ikbZiksa dk lkeus ls thi ds vanj ?kqlus dk LokHkkfod ifj.kke ml gYds okgu dk nwj rd xyr fn'kk esa tkuk gS tks fd izn'kZ 3 esa iwjh rjg dPps esa lM+d ds nwljh vksj fn[kkbZ xbZ gSA vr% lk{; ds mijksDr foospu ls esjh jk; esa VªsDVj pkyd }kjk ykijokgh ls vius VªsDVj esa yksgs ds yEcs yEcs ikbZi vketu dks [krjk igqapkrs gq, ykijokgh o xQyr dkfjr dj nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh xbZ gSA** 10. The MACT in its findings took note of the fact that the challan has also been filed against the driver of the jeep vide Ex. 2, but also took note of the fact that the witnesses gave evidence that it was on account of rash and negligent of the driving of the tractor the accident took place. The MACT also took note of the fact that Map shows that the accident took place at place "X" which is in the mid of the road. After hitting by the tractor the jeep being light vehicle and the tractor which is fully filled up with the pipes with negligence hit the persons in the jeep and they received the injuries only on account of the pipes in the tractor. The MACT also took into consideration the factors by which the accident took place and the rash and negligent driving of the tractor was responsible for accident. The MACT also took note of the fact that the claimants may not be believed but the other evidence also shows that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor. The person who lodged the report that the jeep driver was also negligent was not produced before the MACT and hence the MACT on the basis of the evidence of the eye witnesses who were present at the site and the site map prepared by the police came to the conclusion that the accident took place only on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor. This finding of the MACT cannot be said to be perverse. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT on issue No. 1. Thus the arguments raised by the appellant insurance company that the findings of the MACT on issue No. 1 being devoid of merit cannot be accepted. The cases relied on by the learned counsel are not applicable to the facts of this case. 11. Now I may consider the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and the findings of the MACT on issue No. 2, in the appeals filed by the insurance company one by one. SBCMA 1949/2008 (CLAIM CASE NO. 212/2001) 12. The claimants filed the claim petition claiming amount of Rs. 38,23,000 for the death of Hanumanaram aged 26 years in the accident. SBCMA 1949/2008 (CLAIM CASE NO. 212/2001) 12. The claimants filed the claim petition claiming amount of Rs. 38,23,000 for the death of Hanumanaram aged 26 years in the accident. The claimants have not produced any proof regarding income and the MACT on the basis of casual work done by the deceased assessed his income Rs. 2500/- per month. Out of which one fourth of income assessed to be incurred by the deceased on himself. The MACT determined the age of the deceased to be 30 years on the basis of the post mortem report. In this manner the MACT applied the multiplier of 18 to the income of Rs. 22,500 per year. The insurance company argued that as per the rulings of the Apex Court the amount to be deducted should be one third but in the instant matter the MACT only deducted one fourth. This argument of the learned counsel is liable to be rejected as in the judgment of the MACT future prospects of the deceased were not taken into consideration. By applying the multiplier of 18 to Rs. 22,500/- per year determined the compensation in the amount of Rs. 4,05,000/-. For love and affection to wife Rs. 10,000/- were awarded. For the love and affection to father and mother Rs. 10,000/- each were awarded. For loss of expectation Rs. 10,000/- were awarded and for cremation Rs. 5,000/- were awarded. In all total Rs. 4,50,000/- were awarded. The insurance company is also aggrieved against the award of interest 9% to 10% if the amount is not deposited within a period of two months from the date of award. The award of 9% award cannot be said to be excessive. I have gone through the findings of the MACT in respect of grant of compensation to the claimants for the death of Hanuman. In my view the MACT has rightly awarded Rs. 4,50,000/- to the claimants. This amount cannot be said to be excessive. SBCMA 1946/2008 (CLAIM CASE NO. 223/2001) 13. The claimants filed the claim petition claiming amount of Rs. 28,20,000 for the death of Rampal aged 35 years in the accident. The claimants have not produced any proof regarding income and the MACT on the basis of casual work done by the deceased assessed his income to be Rs. 2500/- per month. Out of which after incurring for self Rs. 28,20,000 for the death of Rampal aged 35 years in the accident. The claimants have not produced any proof regarding income and the MACT on the basis of casual work done by the deceased assessed his income to be Rs. 2500/- per month. Out of which after incurring for self Rs. 2045/- were determined to be his income and multiplying it with 12 it comes to Rs. 24,540/- per year. Looking to his age as 35 years the multiplier of 17 was applied. In this manner Rs. 4,17,180 were determined as compensation. The insurance company argued that as per the rulings of the Apex Court the amount to be deducted should be one third but in the instant matter the MACT only deduced less than one fourth. This argument of the learned counsel is liable to be rejected as in the judgment of the MACT future prospects of the deceased were not taken into consideration. For love and affection to wife Rs. 10,000/- were awarded. For the love and affection to father and mother Rs. 10,000/- each were awarded. For love and affection for three children Rs. 15,000/- in total (Rs. 5,000/- each) were awarded. For loss of expectation Rs. 10,000/- were awarded and for cremation Rs. 5,000/- were awarded. In all total Rs. 4,77,180/- were awarded. The insurance company is also aggrieved against the award of interest 9% to 10% if the amount is not deposited within a period of two months from the date of award. The award of 9% award cannot be said to be excessive. I have gone through the findings of the MACT in respect of the amount awarded to the claimants for the death of Rampal. In my view the MACT has rightly awarded Rs. 4,77,180/- to the claimants. This amount cannot be said to be excessive. SBCMA 1950/2008 (CLAIM CASE NO. 24/2001) 14. The claimants filed the claim petition claiming amount of Rs. 21,58,000/- for the death of Panna Lal, aged 39 years in the accident. The claimants have not produced any proof regarding income and the MACT on the basis of casual work done by the deceased assessed his income Rs. 2500/- per month. Out of which one fourth of income assessed to be incurred by the deceased on himself. 21,58,000/- for the death of Panna Lal, aged 39 years in the accident. The claimants have not produced any proof regarding income and the MACT on the basis of casual work done by the deceased assessed his income Rs. 2500/- per month. Out of which one fourth of income assessed to be incurred by the deceased on himself. The MACT determined the age of the deceased to be 39 years on the basis of the post mortem report and as per the evidence of the claimants. In this manner the MACT applied the multiplier of 16 of the income of Rs. 22,500 per year. The insurance company argued that as per the rulings of the Apex Court the amount to be deducted should be one third but in the instant matter the MACT only deducted one fourth. This argument of the learned counsel is liable to be rejected as in the judgment of the MACT future prospects of the deceased were not taken into consideration. By applying the multiplier of 16 to Rs. 22,500/- per year determined the compensation in the amount of Rs. 3,60,000/-. For love and affection to wife Rs. 10,000/- were awarded. For the love and affection of four children in total Rs. 20,000 (Rs. 5,000 each) were awarded. For loss of expectation Rs. 10,000/- were awarded and for cremation Rs. 5,000/- were awarded. In all total Rs. 4,05,000/- were awarded. The insurance company is also aggrieved against the award of interest 9% to 10% if the amount is not deposited within a period of two months from the date of award. The award of 9% award cannot be said to be excessive. I have gone through the findings of the MACT in respect of the compensation awarded to the claimants for the death of Panna Lal. In my view the MACT has rightly awarded Rs. 4,05,000/- to the claimants. This amount cannot be said to be excessive. SBCMA 1947/2008 (CLAIM CASE NO. 258/2001) 15. The claimant Gumanram filed the claim petition claiming amount of Rs. 18,38,000 for the injuries received by him. The claimant has not produced any proof regarding income and the MACT on the basis of casual work done by the deceased assessed his income Rs. 3000/- per month. SBCMA 1947/2008 (CLAIM CASE NO. 258/2001) 15. The claimant Gumanram filed the claim petition claiming amount of Rs. 18,38,000 for the injuries received by him. The claimant has not produced any proof regarding income and the MACT on the basis of casual work done by the deceased assessed his income Rs. 3000/- per month. Since the claimant could not earn for three months as during this period he has remained on medical treatment and for some time admitted in Hospital therefore Rs. 9,000/- were determined as compensation for loss of income. For one simple injury and one grievous injury Rs. 6,000/- were awarded. He remained admitted in Jaipuria Hospital for that Rs. 3,000/- were awarded. For payment of medicines purchasing etc. Rs. 6,000/- were awarded to the claimants. Since the claimant suffered injuries and remained in trauma for long period, the MACT on all head determined the compensation in the amount of Rs. 35,000/- to be payable to the claimant. I have gone through the findings arrived at by the MACT. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT. The MACT rightly determined compensation in the amount of Rs. 35,000/- on all heads. This amount cannot be said to be perverse. The insurance company is also aggrieved against the award of interest 9% to 10% if the amount is not deposited within a period of two months from the date of award. The award of 9% award cannot be said to be excessive. The appeal filed by the insurance company deserves to be rejected. SBCMA 1951/2008 (CLAIM CASE NO. 342/2002) 16. The claimant Sitaram filed the claim petition claiming amount of Rs. 19,10,000 for the injuries received by him. The claimant produced medical expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 23,508. For fourteen days he remained admitted in Hospital and got treatment. Looking to the expenses incurred by him and the period he remained in Hospital for the injuries suffered by him, the MACT awarded one time compensation in the amount of Rs. 38,000/- to the claimant. I have gone through the findings recorded by the MACT. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT. It is also an admitted fact that he has produced medical expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 23,508/-. 38,000/- to the claimant. I have gone through the findings recorded by the MACT. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT. It is also an admitted fact that he has produced medical expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 23,508/-. In my view for the injuries received by the claimant and for the period he remained in Hospital, the MACT awarded one time compensation in the amount of Rs. 38,000/- to the claimant. This amount cannot be said to be excessive. The insurance company is also aggrieved against the award of interest 9% to 10% if the amount is not deposited within a period of two months from the date of award. The award of 9% interest cannot be said to be excessive. The appeal filed by the insurance company deserves to be rejected. SBCMA 1948/2008 (CLAIM CASE NO. 124/2002) 17. The claimant Raghunath Prasad filed the claim petition claiming amount of Rs. 29,40,000 for the injuries received by him. The claimant produced Ex. 11 discharge ticket dated 23.8.2001. It is stated in the discharge ticket that "No wave activity on right eye. In the Electrophysiology report Ex. 12 A, it is mentioned that "No wave forms could be framed on right side." Medical expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 45580/- was produced. He remained on leave for the period 11.8.2001 to 12.8.2001, 13.8.2001 to 18.10.2001 for 67 days and thereafter from 27.10.2001 to 13.11.2001 for 18 days. The salary certificate of March 2002 produced by the claimant shows that he was drawing Rs. 9116/- per month. In this manner three months salary would be 27500/-. Admission in Hospital for 12 days 12,000/- must have been incurred by him. Medical expenses bill in the amount of Rs. 5,580/-. Disability certificate showing disability of 30% was produced showing loss of vision on right eye due to optic atrophy without disfiguration permanent disability. The MACT on all heads awarded Rs. 2,000,000/- to the claimant. I have gone through the findings recorded by the MACT. The claimant was awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- cannot be said to be excessive. The insurance company is also aggrieved against the award of interest 9% to 10% if the amount is not deposited within a period of two months from the date of award. The award of 9% interest cannot be said to be excessive. The claimant was awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- cannot be said to be excessive. The insurance company is also aggrieved against the award of interest 9% to 10% if the amount is not deposited within a period of two months from the date of award. The award of 9% interest cannot be said to be excessive. The appeal filed by the insurance company deserves to be rejected. 18. In view of the above the Misc. Appeals Nos. 1946/2008, 1947/2008, 1948/2008, 1949/2008, 1950/2008 and 1951/2008 filed by appellant insurance company against the award dated 31.1.2008 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar in MACT Cases Nos. 212/2001, 223/2001, 224/2201, 258/2001, 342/2002, 124/2002 being devoid of merit stand rejected. The award stands confirmed. The stay orders if any in the misc. appeals stand vacated. The stay applications also stand rejected. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.