Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—All the aforesaid thirteen appeals have been filed against the judgments and awards dated 8.12.2005, 19.8.2006 and 16.11.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims, Tribunal, Jhalawar, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranganj Mandi, and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kota respectively. Since they are related to one accident, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being disposed by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14.5.2003 at about 12.30 PM, Shyam Lal, Bhanwari, Prahlad, Bhoora, Savitri, Maina, Vinod, Mangi Lal, Radhey Shyam, Kannu, Shambhu Dayal, Dhanraj, Kalu Lal and others were going in Jeep No. RJ 34-P-0176 from Kota to Jhalawar. In the afternoon at about 2.00 PM, near village Padampura, Truck No. M.P. 09-KB-7198 being driven by its driver rashly, negligently and at an excessive speed, hit the Jeep. One Maruti Zen No. RJ.20-C-6229, which was plying behind the Jeep also caused the accident due to rash, negligent and excessive driving of the Maruti Car. In the aforesaid accident, Shyam Lal, Bhanwari Bai, Prahlad, Bhoora, Savitri, Maina, Kannu, Dhanraj Kalu and Vinod died and others sustained injuries. Following Claim Petitions were filed: (i) Claim Petition No. 485/2003 for the death of Shyam Lal (ii) Claim Petition No. 483/2003 for the injuries sustained by Vinod. (iii) Claim Petition No. 484/2003 for the death of Prahlad (iv) Claim Petition No. 486/2003 for the death of Bhanwari Bai. (v) Claim Petition No. 487/2003 for the death of Savitri (vi) Claim Petition No. 488/2003 for the death of Bhoora @ Bhuriya (vii) Claim Petition No. 489/2003 for the death of Maina W/o Prahlad (viii) Claim Petition No. 550/2003 for the death of Kannu (ix) Claim Petition No. 567/2003 for the injuries sustained by Shambhudayal (x) Claim Petition No. 568/2003 for the injuries sustained by Mangi Lal (xi) Claim Petition No. 569/2003 for the injuries sustained by Radhey Shyam (xii) Claim Petition No. 69/2004 for the death of Dhanraj (xiii) Claim Petition No. 97/2004 for the death of Kalu Lal @ Kalu Ram (xiv) Claim Petition No. 235/2003 for the injuries sustained by Asif Beg (xv) Claim Petition No. 167/2004 for the injuries sustained by Kanwar Lal (xvi) Claim Petition No. 11/2004 for the death of Deepak 3. Thereafter the notices were issued to the respondents including the United India Insurance Company-Limited, reply was filed, issues were framed, evidence -oral as well as documentary was submitted by both the sides and after hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Tribunal decreed different amounts in different claim petitions on different dates, as mentioned here-in-above. Against the impugned judgments and awards, the aforesaid thirteen appeals have been filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd. 4. Learned counsel for the National Insurance Company Ltd. Mr. R.P. Vijay has contended that the judgment of the Tribunal mentioned here-in-above is illegal, unreasonable and contrary to the law. He has further contended that while deciding the aforesaid claim petitions, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record while deciding the issue pertaining to negligent driving of the drivers of the vehicles, as such the impugned judgments and awards deserve to be quashed and set-aside. He has further contended that the car hit the Jeep and then crossed, similarly the Jeep hit at the side of wheel of truck and moved forwardly as such the truck fell down over the jeep. As such the truck driver cannot be said to be negligent and the accident occurred de to the negligence of the Car and Jeep driver, hence the impugned judgments and awards deserve to be quashed and set-aside. He has further contended that the statement of witnesses cannot be relied as they were sitting in over-loaded jeep at its middle or back seat. He has further contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the truck and while passing the impugned awards, the learned Tribunals have not considered this fact and the arguments which have been advanced by him. He has further contended that there is a contributory negligence of the driver of Jeep and Car along with truck driver. The learned Tribunals have not considered the fact of contributory negligence at the time of passing the award, hence, the impugned judgments and awards deserve to be quashed and set-aside. He has further contended that there is a contributory negligence of the driver of Jeep and Car along with truck driver. The learned Tribunals have not considered the fact of contributory negligence at the time of passing the award, hence, the impugned judgments and awards deserve to be quashed and set-aside. He has further contended that the entire liability should be shifted upon the State Government on the ground that the officers of the concerned Department of the State Government permit such type of vehicles to ply on the road taking the passengers from one place to another place in rash manner, contrary to the provisions of law. 5. Learned counsel Mr. R.P. Vijay has further contended that the liability to pay the whole amount of compensation should be transferred upon the State Government so that these types of happenings should not be continued in future also. Learned counsel has further contended that the officers of the State Government do not check those vehicles. If they had checked the vehicles properly and in right manner, then these types of occurrence or happenings could be stopped. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the United India Insurance Company Ltd. and learned counsel for the claimants respondents have contended that the Tribunals have rightly passed the judgments and awards dated 8.12.2005, 19.8.2006 and 16.11.2006, hence no interference is required. It is the negligence of the truck driver, who was driving the vehicle and hit the jeep, on account of which 10 persons died and six persons received injuries. He has further contended that the Tribunal has framed the issues after receiving the reply from the respondents and after recording the evidence upon the issues and after due appreciation, the Tribunals have passed the impugned judgment and award, hence this court should not interfere in the impugned judgment and award. 7. Learned counsel Mr. Bhandari has further contended that there is no question of contributory negligence, hence the United India Insurance Company Ltd. should not be held liable. 8. Other advocates appearing on behalf of the claimants respondents have also opposed the arguments advanced by Mr. R.P. Vijay appearing on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company and contended that the impugned judgments and award passed by the Tribunal should not be interfered by this Court because the judgments and awards are just and proper. 9. 8. Other advocates appearing on behalf of the claimants respondents have also opposed the arguments advanced by Mr. R.P. Vijay appearing on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company and contended that the impugned judgments and award passed by the Tribunal should not be interfered by this Court because the judgments and awards are just and proper. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned judgments and awards passed by the learned Tribunals. The judgments and awards dated 8.12.2005, 19.8.2006 16.11.2006 have been passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhalawar, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranganj Mandi, and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kota respectively after due appreciation of evidence and after hearing the parties and detailed judgments have been passed. The insurance company has assailed the award only regarding the negligence of the truck driver. The insurance company has assailed the award only regarding the negligence of the truck driver. In these circumstances it is appropriate to look into the findings of the Tribunal regarding negligence in the common award of the MACT Kota in claim case No. 485 of 2003 and other claim cases observed as under: ^^42- ;ksX; vf/koDrk vizkFkhZ la- 3 dk dFku mfpr izrhr ugha gksrkA vizkFkhZ la- 3 dh vksj ls Vªd pkyd dks lk{; esa is'k ugha fd;k x;k gSA blds foijhr vizkFkhZ la- 4 HkwisUnz flag ,u-,-MCY;w- 1 ds :i esa Lo;a lk{; esa is'k gqvk gS rFkk mlus Lo;a dFku fd;k gS fd nq?kZVuk esa mldh dksbZ xyrh ugha Fkh] cfYd thi] Vªd esa] nq?kZVuk gksus ds ckn Hkwlk mM+us ds dkj.k] tks fLFkfr iSnk gqbZ] mlesa mlus thi ds ihNs viuh dkj dks ykrs gq,] mls jksdus dk Hkjld iz;kl fd;k rFkk thi ds ikl igqaprs igqaprs jksd Hkh yh] ysfdu Vªd dh VDdj ls thi dqN okfil ihNs gqbZ rks dkj ds vkxs nka;h fgLls ls Vdjk x;h rFkk mldh dksbZ xyrh ugha Fkh blh dFku dh iqf"V ,Q-vkbZ-vkj- ntZ djkus okys ,u-,-MCY;w-2 ekaxhyky us Hkh vius c;kuksa esa dh gS] ftlus vizkFkhZ la- 4 dkj pkyd dh ykijokgh o mis{kk ugha gksus dh ckr dgha gSA izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr p'enhn xokg ,-MCY;w- 2 iou] dkj pkyd dh ykijokgh ugha dgrkA ,-MCY;w- 3 kEHkwn;ky us dkj pkyd dh ykijokgh pkyd dh ykijokgh ds lkFk crk;h gS] ysfdu bl xokg dks iwjh rjg fo'oluh; ugha ekuk tk ldrkA bl xokg us thi esa 9-10 lokjh gh gksuk dgk gS] tcfd orZeku 13 Dyse ls ;g izdV gS fd thi esa 9-10 lokfj;ksa ls dh vf/kd lokfj;ka FkhaA ;g xokg igys ek:fr }kjk thi esa VDdj ekjus rFkk fQj thi dk Vªd ls Vdjkuk dgrk gS] ftl dFku dh iqf"V vU; fdlh xokg ds c;kuksa ls ugha gksrhA ,-MCY;w- 5 fouksn us ;|fi Vªd pkyd o dkj pkyd dh ykijokgh ls nq?kZVuk gksus dh ckr dgh gS ysfdu izfrijh{kk esa bl xokg us Li"V dFku fd;k gS fd nq?kZVuk ds le; og lks jgk FkkA blds vykok ;g xokg thi esa lkeus dh rjQ eqag djds cSBk Fkk] ftlls ihNs ls vk jgh dkj ds lEcU/k esa bldks Kku Hkh ugha gks ldrkA ,-MCY;w- 10 dSyk'k us 'kq:vkr esa Vªd dh gh xyrh crk;h gS] ysfdu thi esa VSadj gksus ds ckn dkj dk Hkh VDdj ekjus dh ckr dgh gS] ftlls ;g rks fu"d"kZ fudkyk tk ldrk gS fd nq?kZVuk ds dkj.k ldne ls mRiUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa dkj Hkh iwjh rjg fu;af=r ugha jgh rFkk dqN thi ds Vdjk;h] ysfdu ;g ugha ekuk tk ldrk fd og dkj nq?kZVuk dk dkj.k gksA ;ksX; vf/koDrk vizkFkhZ la- 3 dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUr esjs fouez er esa orZeku ekeys ds rF;ksa esa ykxw ugha gksrsA U;kf;d n`"VkUr 2005¼1½ Mh-,u-ts- ist 379 ¼jkt-½esa ftl okgu esa ;k=h cSBs gq, gS] mldk ;g nkf;Ro crk;k x;k gS fd og lkeus vkus okys okgu ls nwjh cukdj j[ksA orZeku ekeys esa ,slh dksbZ lk{; ugha vk;h gS ftlls ;g izdV gks fd thi pkyd us nwjh ugha cukdj j[kh gks] cfYd uD'kk ekSdk ls ;gh izdV gksrk gS fd Vªd pkyd us lMd ds e/; js[kk ls Hkh 3 QhV nka;h rjQ xyr fn'kk esa vkdj VDdj ekjhA U;k; n`"VkUr 2001 MCY;q-,y-lh- ¼jkt-½ ¼;w-lh-½ ist 64 ds ekeys esa ek:fr osu o jksMost dh cl esa vkeus lkeus VDdj dk ekeyk Fkk ftlesa xokgku us nksuks okguksa ds pkydksa dh ykijokgh crkbZ ysfdu orZeku ekeys esa thi pkyd dh ykijokgh o mis{kk ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ lk{; ugha gS rFkk ek:fr dkj o Vªd esa vkeus lkeus dh dksbZ VDdj ugha gqbZ gSA tgka rd ,-lh-Vh-lh- 2006 ist 472 okys ekeys dk iz'u gS] og ekeyk jksMost cl o Vªd ds vkeus lkeus VDdj dk Fkk] tcfd orZeku ekeys esa thi o Vªd fcYdqy vkeus lkeus ugha ik;s x;s gS] cfYd Vªd dk Hkwlk mij rd Hkjk gksus rFkk Vªd ds nka;h fgLls ls thi ds nka;s fgLls dh VDdhj gksus dh ckr dgh x;h gS rFkk Hkwls ds Hkh Vdjk tkus ls ;k Hkwls ds uhps thi nc tkus ls thi esa lokj ;kf=;ksa ds pksVsa vkuk o mudh e`R;q gks tkuk crk;k x;k gS rFkk thi pkyd dh ykijokgh gksus ds lEcU/k esa ys'kek= Hhk lk{; i=koyh ij ugha gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa u rks ekeys esa ;g dgk tk ldrk fd nq?kZVuk esa thi pkyd dh ykijokgh Fkh] u gh ;g dgk tk ldrk fd nq?kZVuk esa thi pkyd o ek:fr dkj pkyd vizkFkhZ la- 4 HkwijsUnzflag dh ;ksxnk;h mis{kk o ykijokgh FkhA 43- i=koyh ij fo|eku lk{; ls ;g HkyhHkkafr fl) gS fd vizkFhkZ la- 1 j'khn eksgEen us fnukad 14-5-2003 dks fnu ds yxHkx 2-00 cts Vªd ,e-ih- 09-dsch- 7198 dks rsth] xQyr o ykijokgh ls pykdj thi vkj-ts- 34-ih-0176 ds VDdj ekjh] ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i thi esa lokj ';keyky] HkaojhckbZ] izgykn] Hkwjk mQZ Hkwfj;k] lkfo=h] dUuw] dkywjke] eSukckbZ] /kujkt dh e`R;q gks x;h rFkk fouksn o 'kEHkwyky ds pksVsa vk;h rFkk 'kEHkwn;ky ds 10 izfr'kr LFkkbZ v'kDrrk dkfjr gqbZA izkFkZuk i= la- 568@03 esa izkFkhZ ekaxhyky o 569@03 esa izkFkhZ jk/ks';ke lk{; esa is'k ugha gq, gSaA ,slh fLFkfr esa muds pksVsa vkuk izekf.kr ugha ekuk tk ldrkA izLrqr lk{; ls ek:fr dkj pkyd vizkFkhZ la- 4 }kjk rsth] xQyr o ykijokgh ls dkj vkj-ts- 20-lh-6229 pykdj nq?kZVuk dkfjr djuk ;k mldh ;ksxnk;h mis{kk gksuk izekf.kr ugha gSA vr% ;s nksuksa fook|d blh izdkj mijksDrkuqlkj izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa vizkFkhZ la- 1 yxk;r 3 ds fo:) fuf.kZr fd;s tkrs gSaA** I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT on issues 1 and 2 which are under challenge in this appeal. Since the insurance company is not assailing the findings on others issues and thus the impugned judgments and awards passed by the learned Tribunal are found to be just and apposite and they do not suffer from any legal flaw. 10. For the reasons stated above, all the aforesaid thirteen appeals fail and the same being bereft of any merit deserve to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly and the impugned judgments and awards dated 8.12.2005, 19.8.2006 16.11.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhalawar, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramganj Mandi, and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kota are hereby confirmed. 11. Mr. R.P. Vijay, learned counsel has raised the argument at the time of dictating the judgment that the liability should be shifted upon the shoulder of the State Government on the ground that employees of the concerned Department of the State Government do not check such types of vehicles and they are plying the vehicles without following the provisions of the M.V. Act. He has further contended that the people do not travel in the Government vehicle while the Government vehicles are available. They, by hook or crook, occupy the seat in the Jeep. He has further contended that near about 22 passengers were traveling in the Jeep, which is beyond the its capacity. 12. This suggestion or argument is supported by all the Advocates of this side and that side, who are appearing in this matter. I have also questioned Mr. Tripurari Sharma, Ms. Chitra Goyal, Mr. Sandeep Jain and other Advocates of the Insurance Company and they also supported this argument advanced by Mr. R.P. Vijay. 13. Hence, liberty is granted to all the Insurance Companies to file a writ petition (PIL) before this Court regarding the aforesaid relief, which has been pointed out by Mr. R.P. Vijay and supported by all the Advocates appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company.