JUDGMENT 1. - These four appeals have been filed by the insurance company against the award dated 1.8.2001 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Dholpur in claim cases Nos.222/1997, 221/1997, 248/1997 and 259/1997 whereby claim petitions of the claimants were allowed and they have been granted compensation. Since the common award dated 1.8.2001 and related to same accident, they are being disposed by this common order. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 7.2.1997 Hakim Singh,Hakim Ali, Damodar, Lakshman, Omi, Naresh and Sahjad and others were traveling in the vehicle having registration No. UP 80 L 9064. These persons were going from village Rajora to the city of Kanpur in order to sale vegetables. In the morning of 8.2.1997 the driver while driving the vehicle lost control over it and the vehicle dashed against a tree and overturned resulting in death of four persons on the sport and injuries to several others. 4. The MACT on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed four issues. Issue No.1 related to the aspect as to whether deceased were traveling in the said vehicle and the vehicle collided with a tree due to bursting of tyre resulting in the death of the aforesaid persons. Issue No.2 was framed as to whether the vehicle was having the capacity of 3 persons while 10-12 persons were traveling in it. Issue No.3 related to the aspect as to whether the driver was having a valid driving licence and if not the effect thereof. Issue No.4 related to relief. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the claimants and the documents on record decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimant and against the defendant. Issues 2 and 3 were also decided in favour of the claimants. The MACT by the award dated 1.8.2001 awarded the compensation to the claimants. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the capacity of the vehicle was only of 3 persons including the driver whereas about 10-12 persons were travelling along with goods which resulted in the alleged accident. The quantum of compensation as allowed by the MACT is not based on settled principle of law and the same is liable to be set aside. The quantum of compensation as allowed by the MACT is not based on settled principle of law and the same is liable to be set aside. The passengers were travelling in the goods vehicle and the insurance company could not be held liable for payment of compensation. The learned counsel has further argued that it is a case of breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as more than 3 persons were being carried in the vehicle which was much more than the prescribed capacity of the 3 persons including driver. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants have argued that the MACT has considered all the points and issues in accordance with law. The award of the MACT cannot be said to be perverse. The compensation was rightly awarded in favour of the claimants. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the award dated 1.8.2001 passed by the MACT. On a perusal of the award would reveal that the MACT considered the fact that the deceased were traveling in the vehicle with their goods and they have gone to some other village for selling vegetables. While deciding the issues No. 2 and 3, the MACT held as under : " 8- geus mHk; i{kksa ds rdksZa ij euu fd;kA ;g lqLFkkfir frfFk gS fd dksbZ Hkh O;fDr vius eky ds lkFk eky Hkkj okgd esa ;k=k dj ldrk gS rFkk ;fn og ,slk djrk gS rks o chek ikWfylh dh 'krksZ ls lajf{kr gksrk gS vykok blds ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk tks U;k; fu.kZ; U;w bf.M;k ba';ksjsUl dEiuh cuke lriky flag o vU; ds izdk'k esa ;fn mUgsa ikfjrksf"kd ;k=h Hkh ekuk tk;s rks Hkh os r`rh; i{kdkj dh la[;k esa vkrs gS rFkk /kkjk 147 eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e ds v/khu chek ikWfylh ls lajf{kr gksrs gSA vr% ;k fook|d Hkh vFkkZr fook|d la0 2 Hkh foi{kh la0 1 vFkkZr chek dEiuh ds fo:) fu.khZr gksrk gS rFkk ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k tkrk gS fd foi{kh la0 1 o 2 {kfriwfrZ vnk djus ds fy, la;qDr% o i`Fkdr% mRrjnk;h gSA " 8. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT on issues 2 and 3. 9. On issue No.4, the MACT in three cases determined the income of the deceased to be Rs. 30,000/- per year. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the MACT on issues 2 and 3. 9. On issue No.4, the MACT in three cases determined the income of the deceased to be Rs. 30,000/- per year. Out of which one third was to be incurred by the deceased on self. For the death of Hakim Singh claim No. 222/97 was filed against which the MACT filed SBCMA 2051/2001. The multiplier of 18 was applied in his case. In this manner Rs. 3,60,000/- were determined as compensation. Claimants 2,3, 4 and 5 who were dependent on deceased Hakim Singh the MACT awarded Rs. 20,000/- each for love and affection. For cremation Rs. 5,000/- were awarded. Total Rs. 4,85,000/- were awarded. This amount cannot be said to be excessive. 10. For the death of Damodar claim case No. 248/97 was filed. His income was assessed to be Rs. 30,000/- as mentioned above and one third was to be incurred by himself and in this manner Rs. 20,000/- per annum was computed as dependency. Looking to his age multiplier of 18 was determined. In this manner total income was computed to be Rs. 3,60,000/-. Kampoori who is mother of the deceased Rs. 20,000/- were allowed to her towards love and affection and Rs. 5,000/- awarded towards cremation. In this claim petition total Rs. 3,85,000/- were awarded. This amount cannot be said to be perverse. 11. For the death of Hakim Ali claim case No. 221/97 was filed. The multiplier of 18 was applied in his case. In this manner Rs. 3,60,000/- were determined as compensation. Claimants 2,3, 4,5,6 and 7 who were dependent on deceased Hakim Singh the MACT awarded Rs. 20,000/- each for love and affection. For cremation Rs. 5,000/- were awarded. Total Rs. 5,45,000/- were awarded. This amount cannot be said to be excessive. 12. In claim case No. 259/97, the injured Naresh Omi and Shahjad claimed compensation for the injuries received by them. They have not produced any medical expenses bills etc. In this manner the MACT awarded in lump sum Rs. 30,000/-. This amount also cannot be said to be perverse. 13. The compensation was also rightly awarded to the claimants. The appeals filed by the insurance company being devoid of merits stand dismissed. The stay applications also stand dismissed.Appeals dismissed. *******