JUDGMENT 1. - All the above miscellaneous appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act arise out of common judgment and award dated 16.12.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara in various claim cases arising out of the same accident, by which, the Tribunal passed six awards in respect of death of the accident victim and one award was passed in favour of injured Smt. Raju. Since the facts are same, for the sake of convenience, facts narrated in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 318/2012 (arising out of Claim Case No. 209/2009) are taken into consideration to decide all these appeals by this-common judgment. 2. As per facts, the claimants filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Banswara alleging there in that on 12.6.2008, at about 8-9 O'clock in the evening, due to illness of Smt. Bhula she was being taken to hospital by Kamla, Smt. Mana, Laxman, etc. in Maruti Van bearing registration No. RJ-12-UA-240. When the said Maruti Van was going along the way from Ganoda to Banswara it dashed against a stationary troller bearing No. RJ-05-GA-1387 parked on the road-side and it resulted into death of 6 persons and injuries were sustained to other passengers. 3. In the investigation conducted by the police in pursuance of F.I.R. No. 107/08 registered at Station Lohariya, it is found that Maruti Van was not insured at all at the time of the accident and troller which was standing on the road was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. After investigation, challan was filed under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A, I.P.C. and Sections 146/196, 183-184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the accident, Smt. Kamla, Smt. Bhula, Laxman Mana, Velia and Shankar died and Smt. Raju sustained injuries and claimants filed claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara where common trial was conducted and after framing issues, oral evidence was recorded and 19 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, the Claim Tribunal gave issue-wise finding for all the issues and held that driver of the Maruti Van was not responsible for the said accident; the troller was standing on the road without any indicator or parking lights and due to the said negligent act of the troller driver the accident took place. 4. Thereafter, the Claim Tribunal gave issue-wise finding for all the issues and held that driver of the Maruti Van was not responsible for the said accident; the troller was standing on the road without any indicator or parking lights and due to the said negligent act of the troller driver the accident took place. 4. After trial, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara passed consolidated award dated 16.12.2011, in which, following amounts were awarded in separate claims : "1. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 318/2012) Claimants Smt. Meera and others, arising out of Claim Case No. 209/2009, in which, the Claim Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 9,48,000/-. 2. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 323/2012) Claimants Smt. Dariya and others, rising out of Claim Case No. 210/2009, in which, the Claim Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 7,10,000/-. 3. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 324/2012) Claimants Smt. Kachari and others, arising out of Claim Case No. 211/2009, in which, the Claim Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 6,68,000/-. 4. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 321/2012) Claimants Jeeva and others, arising out of Claim Case No. 212/2009, in which, the Claim Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,59,000/-. 5. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 320/2012) Claimants Smt. Raju and others, arising out of Claim Case No. 213/2009, in which, the Claim Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. 6. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 322/2012) Claimants Pooniya and others, arising out of Claim Case No. 241/2009, in which, the Claim Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,37,000/-. 7. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 319/2012) Claimants Smt. Raju and others, arising out of Claim Case No. 214/2009, in which, the Claim Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 6,01,000/:." The appellant Insurance Company is challenging the validity of the award solely on the ground that the troller in question was standing on the road-side which is evident from the map prepared by the Investigating Officer and due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Van by its driver the accident occurred, therefore, the Tribunal has erroneously exonerated the driver of the Maruti Van; and, further, it is also stated in the appeal that Maruti Van was not insured at the time of the accident; meaning thereby, the said Maruti Van was illegally plying on the road without any insurance, therefore, the award passed against the appellant Insurance Company is totally erroneous.6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that it is a case of contributory negligence but the Claims Tribunal, in very casual manner, passed the awards impugned without considering the map submitted by the Investigating Officer before the criminal Court, therefore, the liability imposed upon the appellant Insurance Company deserves to be quashed7. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that a concocted story is framed by the claimants that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruti Van whereas admittedly- the Maruti Van was not insured, therefore, charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the Maruti Van under Sections 146/196, 183-184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the Claims Tribunal miserably foiled to apply the principle of res ipsa locator and contributory negligence which vitiates the impugned judgment on the above principle. Therefore, on the basis of the site map it cannot be said that negligence can be attributed to the owner and driver of the troller alone because the driver of the Maruti Van was equally negligent which resulted into the accident and the judgment and award impugned may be quashed.8. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, i have perused the award impugned in which it is revealed that the appellant Insurance Company admitted that troller No. RJ-05-GA-1387 was insured with the Insurance Company. Further, it is also admitted that the troller was standing on the road and as per evidence the occurrence took place in between 8-9 P.M. in the night .and admittedly indicator and parking lights were not turned on whereas it is mandatory for all the vehicles that in the event of parking of any vehicle on the road there should be parking lights and indicator turned on while the vehicle is kept stationary on the road or road-side. In this view of the matter, the finding given by, the Claims Tribunal with regard to negligent act of the troller driver is based upon cogent evidence.9. In this view of the matter, the finding given by, the Claims Tribunal with regard to negligent act of the troller driver is based upon cogent evidence.9. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant that map has not been considered by the Tribunal has no substance because in the investigation challan was filed against the driver of troller under Section 283, I.P.C. also, therefore, the finding given by the Claims Tribunal with regard to accident that it occurred due to negligent act of the troller driver is based upon sound reasons and proper appreciation of the fact that appellant company has not adduced any evidence to refute the fact that troller was standing on the road without any indicator or parking lights at the time the incident occurred Therefore, the plea of the appellant that it is a case of contributory,negligence is also not tenable.10. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in all the above appeals Consequently, all the above appeals are hereby dismissed.Appeals dismissed. *******