1. Vide separate orders of even date, limitation petitions bearing Nos. Condl.(C) No. 215/2009, Condl.(C) No. 216/2009, Condl.(C) No. 217/2009, Condl.(C) No. 218/2009, Condl.(C) No. 219/2009, Condl.(C) No. 220/2009, Condl.'(C) No. 221/2009, Condl.(C) No. 222/2009, Condl.(C) No. 223/2009 and APCIV No. 33/2010 were allowed and disposed of. 2. Before taking main appeals for disposal, I deem it proper to deal with issue relatable to legal representatives of claimant-Shabnam Begum in CIMA No.130/2010 and CIMA No.157/2010. 3. In File No.477/Claim titled Shubnam Begum v. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., the Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of injured, namely, Shabnam Begum W/O Late Sh. Gulzar Ahmed R/O Paddar, Tehsil Kishrwar, District Doda who died during the pendency of the claim petition and her legal representatives have not been brought on record. Even Mr. Hamal learned counsel for the claimant-Shabnam Begum was pointedly asked about legal representatives of Shabnam Begum (in CIMA No. 142/2010) but he stated at the Bar that he does not know about the whereabouts of legal representatives of Shabnam Begum who died during the pendency of the claim petition. He further stated that her husband, namely, Sh. Gulzar Ahmed and her two minor children, namely, Tabish and Danish who were victims of vehicular accident also succumbed to the injuries, constraining Shabnam Begum to file four claim petitions bearing File Nos. 475/claim(CIMANo.130/2012), 477/claim (CIMA No.142/2010), 478/claim (CIMA No. 157/2010) and 476/claim (CIMA No. 152/2010). 4. Now question arises for consideration to whom the compensation is payable. It is not known who are the parents of the claimant-Shabnam Begum because no motion has been laid for bringing on record the legal representatives (in CIMA No.142/2010). Grant of compensation is having social purpose. The parents who have lost their daughter are entitled to compensation but they have not come forward. 5. In the given circumstances, CIMA No.142/2010 is consigned to records with liberty to the legal representatives of Shabnam Begum to lay motion for bringing on record or work out any other remedy available to them under law. Accordingly, CIMA No.142/2010 stands disposed of. 6. 5. In the given circumstances, CIMA No.142/2010 is consigned to records with liberty to the legal representatives of Shabnam Begum to lay motion for bringing on record or work out any other remedy available to them under law. Accordingly, CIMA No.142/2010 stands disposed of. 6. Next question for consideration is that upon perusal of the record, it was noticed that the Tribunal while recording judgment have not recorded the names of legal representatives of Shabnam Begum in Claim Petitions No.475/claim and 477/claim, i.e., (CIMA No. 130/2010 and CIMA No.157/2010) because in the said claim petitions she sought compensation on account of death of her minor children, namely, Tabish and Danish but she too died constraining to lay motion by father-in-law and sisters-in-law, i.e. respondent No. 2 to 4 (in CIMA No. 152/2010),i.e., (1) Ghulam Haider son of Mohd. Sultan, (2) Parveen Akhter daughter of Ghulam Haider and (3) Afroza Bano daughter of Ghulam Haider, all residents of Paddar, Tehsil and Distt. Kishtwar for bringing them on record as legal representatives in the claim petitions (CIMA No.130/2010 and CIMA No.157/2010) despite the fact that they were already on record in CIMA No.152/2010 by medium of which claimant-Shabnam Begum, her father-in-law and sisters-in-law sought compensation because of death of Sh. Gulzar Ahmed (husband of Shabnam Begum). Accordingly, the Tribunal vide order dated 29.03.2008 had brought on record legal representatives of claimant-Shabnam Begum who are figuring in CIMA No. 152/2010 as respondents 2 to 4 (claimants-legal representatives). 7. In the given circumstances, Registry is directed to make necessary correction in CIMA No. 130/2010 and CIMA No. 157/2010 by recording the names (1) Ghulam Haider son of Mohd Sultan, (2) Parveen Akhter daughter of Ghulam Haider and (3) Afroza Bano daughter of Ghulam Haider, all residents of Paddar, Tehsil and Distt. Kishtwar as legal representatives of deceased-Shabnam Begum. 8. All CIMAs are taken up on board, the numbers of which are mentioned in the cause title. 9. All these appeals are outcome of common award, thus, I deem it proper to decide all these appeals by a common judgment except CIMA No.142/2010. 10. Kishtwar as legal representatives of deceased-Shabnam Begum. 8. All CIMAs are taken up on board, the numbers of which are mentioned in the cause title. 9. All these appeals are outcome of common award, thus, I deem it proper to decide all these appeals by a common judgment except CIMA No.142/2010. 10. On 13.07.2003, the deceased as well as the injured were travelling in a passenger bus bearing registration No.JK02-H-5785 which was going towards Kishtwar and when reached near GRIEF Camp, Prem Nagar because of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle which was paving the way for Matador No.JK-06-836 lost the control over the Bus which fell down into the River. The accident had taken place because of rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of the offending vehicles. In the said accident, 35 passengers sustained fatal injuries and some oi them succumbed to the injuries on spot and other sustained grievous injuries with permanent disablement, constraining legal representatives/dependants of the deceased and injured to file claim petitions before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu, which were clubbed and tried together and vide impugned judgment and award dated 31.10.2009 all the petitions came to be disposed of by passing a common judgment and award. 11. Insurers-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and United India Insurance Co. Ltd contested claim petitions by pleading that drivers of the offending vehicles were not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. 12. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues came to be framed:- "1. Whether an accident took place on 13.07.2003 at Prem Nagar, Doda due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Bus No. JK02H/5785 in the hands of erring driver in which the deceased namely, Shamina Bano, Sumitra Devi, Haji Noor Din, Ganesh Kumar, Gotam Singh, Jamit Ram, Mohd Rafiq, Nazir Ahmed, Chander Rekha, Amjad Ali, Azad Hussain, Tabish Gulzar Ahmed, Danish, Noor Hussain sustained fatal injuries and petitioners Rakesh Kumar and Shubnam Begum sustained grievous injuries. OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioners in the above titled claims petitions are entitled to the compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the offending vehicle at the time of accident was overloaded with passengers and was being driving in contravention of terms and conditions of insurance policy; if so how ? OPR-1. 4. OPP. 3. Whether the offending vehicle at the time of accident was overloaded with passengers and was being driving in contravention of terms and conditions of insurance policy; if so how ? OPR-1. 4. Whether offending vehicle at the time of accident was being driven by the unlicensed driver ? OPR-1. 5. Relief. OP Parties." 13. Thereafter vide order dated 15.09.2008, two more issues came to be framed which are as under: "1. Whether an accident took place on 13.07.2003 at Prem Nagar Doda due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicles No.JK02H-5785 and vehicle No.0836-JK06 ? OPP 2. Whether the driver of both the vehicles were negligently in driving and contributed the accident ? OPP 14. The claimants have examined witnesses and also placed on record some documents to substantiate their claims. It appears that Insurers have not led any evidence, thus, the evidence led by claimants remained un-rebutted. 15. After examining the record, Tribunal has passed common award which is impugned in these all appeals. 16. It is worthwhile to record herein that the Tribunal has saddled both the insurance companies i.e. Oriental Insurance Co. and United India Insurance Company with equal liabilities of 50% each. Neither Insurance Companies nor claimants have questioned the impugned award on quantum. The United Indian Insurance Company has not questioned its liability. The appellant-Oriental Insurance Companies has questioned the impugned award only on the ground that accident was outcome of overloading, thus, the Insurer-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, was not liable to pay compensation and Tribunal has fallen in error by saddling the appellant with liability to pay compensation. 17. Admittedly, the Insurance companies have not led any evidence nor there was any evidence or material on record to prove that the accident was outcome of overloading. The claimants have led evidence and have proved by oral as well as documentary evidence that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicles which is not questioned. The only ground projected is that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation because of overloading. 18. It is a beaten law of the land that the Insurer has to satisfy the claim to the extent of seating capacity of the insured vehicle. 19. Learned counsel, Mr. The only ground projected is that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation because of overloading. 18. It is a beaten law of the land that the Insurer has to satisfy the claim to the extent of seating capacity of the insured vehicle. 19. Learned counsel, Mr. Chouhan and learned counsel for the claimants have admitted that the capacity of the offending vehicle was 42 passengers whereas it is admitted that only 35 passengers-claimants have made the claim, thus, the Insurer-appellant cannot escape from its liability. 20. My view is fortified by the judgments of the Apex Court titled National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam and others reported in 2007 (5) Supreme 856 wherein it is held as under:- "15...We are of the view that the insurance company can be made liable only in respect of the number of passengers for whom insurance can be taken under the Act and for whom insurance has been taken as a fact and not in respect of the other passengers involved in the accident in a case of overloading." 16. Then arises the question, how to determine the compensation payable or how to quantify the compensation since there is no means of ascertaining who out of the overloaded passengers constitute the passengers covered by the insurance policy as permitted to be carried by the permit itself. As this Court has indicated, the purpose of the Act is to bring benefit to the third parties who are either injured or dead in an accident. It serves a social purpose. Keeping that in mind, we think that the practical and proper course would be to hold that the insurance company, in such a case, would be bound to cover the higher of the various awards and will be compelled to deposit the higher of the amounts of compensation awarded to the extent of the number of passengers covered by the insurance policy.." 21. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.M. Poonam and others reported in 2011 ACJ 917, wherein it is held as under:- "11. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.M. Poonam and others reported in 2011 ACJ 917, wherein it is held as under:- "11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that having regard to the provisions of section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the liability, if any, of the insurance company for payment of compensation would have to be limited to the number of passengers validly permitted to be carried in the vehicle covered by the insurance policy and did not extend to the number of passengers carried in excess of the permitted number. The learned counsel submitted that the said question had been considered by a two-judge Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam, 2007 ACJ 2129 (SC). While considering the provisions of Section 147 (1) (b) (ii) and (2) and Section 149 (1), (2) and (5) of the 1988 Act in relation to any insurer's liability, their, Lordships came to the conclusion that the insurer's liability was limited by the insurance taken out for the number of permitted passengers and did not extended to paying amounts decreed in respect of other passengers. Taking recourse to a harmonious construction of the relevant provisions, their Lordships held that the total amount of compensation payable should be deposited by the insurance company which could be proportionality distributed to all the claimants, who could recover the balance of the compensation amounts awarded to them from the owner of the vehicle. 24. The liability of the insurer, therefore, is confined to the number of persons covered by the insurance policy and not beyond the same. In other words, as in the present case, since the insurance policy of the owner of the vehicle covered six occupants of the vehicle in question, including the driver, the liability of the insurer would be confined to six persons only, notwithstanding the larger number of persons carried in the vehicle. Such excess number of persons would have to be treated as third parties, but since no premium had been paid in the policy for them, the insurer would not be liable to make payment of the compensation amount as far as they are concerned. Such excess number of persons would have to be treated as third parties, but since no premium had been paid in the policy for them, the insurer would not be liable to make payment of the compensation amount as far as they are concerned. However, the liability of the insurance company to make payment even in respect of the persons not covered by the insurance policy continues under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 149 of the Act, as it would be entitled to recover the same if it could prove that one of the conditions of the policy had been breached by the owner of the vehicle. In the instant case, any of the persons travelling in the vehicle in excess of the permitted number of six passengers, though entitled to be compensated by the owner of the vehicle, would still be entitled to receive the compensation amount from the insurer, who could then recover it from the insured-owner of the vehicle." 22. Learned counsel for the appellant has not questioned the impugned award on the ground of 'adequacy of compensation', Therefore, I refrain myself to comment upon the same. 23. Having glance of the above discussion, the impugned award merits to be upheld and appeals merit to be dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and appeals except CIMA No. 142 are dismissed along with connected CMA(s). 24. The amount of compensation deposited be released in favour of the claimants after their proper identification and verification strictly in terms of the impugned award. The Court fee shall be the first charge. 25. It is stated at the Bar by Mr. Chouhan that in some of the cases, amount has not been deposited. The same be deposited within six weeks. On deposit, it shall be released in favour of the claimants after their proper identification and verification strictly in terms of the impugned award. The Court fee shall be the first charge. 26. Registry to send down the records along with copy.of this order. 27. Copy of this order be placed on the record of each file. 28. Disposed of as above along with connected CMA(s).