JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Heard Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate for the appellant, and Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate for the claimants. 2. Since all these appeals have arisen out of the same accident, hence are being adjudicated together by this single judgment. The Court is disposing of all these appeals vide common judgment for other reasons also, which can be summarised as below: (a) Smt. Bachuli Devi and her two sons are the claimants in all these claim petitions for the unique feature, which can be countenanced by way of laying down the following pedigree of deceased showing the interconnection of all of them with the claimants. Balwant Singh (predeceased) Smt. Bachuli Devi @ Basanti Devi (First wife) Smt. Tulsi Devi (Second wife) (died in accident) Harish Singh Suresh Singh Bhajan Singh (died in accident) Smt. Sunita Devi (died in accident) Master Ritik (aged 7 years) Km. Versa (aged 5 years) (both died in accident) (b) For more clarity, the persons, who lost their lives in the present accident, are as under: (i) Smt. Tulsi Devi, aged 58 years (ii) Mr. Bhajan Singh, aged about 30 years (iii) Smt. Sunita Devi, W/o Bhajan Singh (iv) Master Ritik, S/o Bhajan Singh (v) Km. Varsa, D/o Bhajan Singh (c) The ill-fated vehicle was travelling from Dehradun to Tharali on 1.6.2009 at 7.40 PM and at such time, when it was on the tardy hilly roads, the wheel of vehicle pressed a retaining wall of the road, which was incidentally very weak and could not bear the overloaded vehicle resulting into falling down of the same in the deep ditch beside the flowing river. As a consequence, all these five persons lost their lives. (d) Vehicle was comprehensively insured and being driven by Bhajan Singh at the relevant time. It was owned by one Chandra Datt Joshi. The learned Tribunal has awarded compensation as under: (i) For death of Smt. Tulsi Devi – Rs. 4,85,000/- (ii) For death of Smt. Sunita Devi – Rs. 76,500/- (iii) For death of Master Ritik – Rs. 50,000/- (iv) For death of Km. Varsa – Rs. 50,000/- (v) For death of Bhajan Singh – Rs. 1,72,000/- Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 8,34,000/- has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. 3. 4,85,000/- (ii) For death of Smt. Sunita Devi – Rs. 76,500/- (iii) For death of Master Ritik – Rs. 50,000/- (iv) For death of Km. Varsa – Rs. 50,000/- (v) For death of Bhajan Singh – Rs. 1,72,000/- Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 8,34,000/- has been awarded by the learned Tribunal. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant insurance company argued that to award the compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, driving of the vehicle in rash and negligent manner is an essential element and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company v. Premlata Shukla & Others, reported in 2007 (3) T.A.C. 11, has held it indispensable for awarding of such compensation. Although the Tribunal was of the view that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently, but the facts of the case are in the nature of res ipsa loquitur which suggest that incident occurred all of a sudden and without any prior estimation or anticipation in the mind of the driver and in such nature of accident, it cannot be inferred that the driver was rash and negligent while plying the vehicle on the road. 4. This Court is unable to agree with the contention of learned Senior Counsel of the appellant for the reason that in the present set of facts, when the retaining wall, on account of not capable of bearing the load of the vehicle, collapsed, then also it is difficult to infer that the driver of the vehicle was driving with all care and caution and with the height of his skill. It can also be inferred or rather it should be visualised that such a driver should have been more cautious and vigilant in driving his vehicle, which was already overloaded, while permitting the wheel of such vehicle at the edge of such road, and he certainly did not do so. Therefore, I do agree with the finding of learned Tribunal on this aspect of the issue. 5. As regards the fastening of the liability on the insurance company, it is also not in the controversy. To my mind, the real dispute should be whether Smt. Bachuli Devi @ Basanti Devi and her two sons (from Balwant Singh) are the surviving legal representatives of all the deceased as contemplated under the Act. 6. 5. As regards the fastening of the liability on the insurance company, it is also not in the controversy. To my mind, the real dispute should be whether Smt. Bachuli Devi @ Basanti Devi and her two sons (from Balwant Singh) are the surviving legal representatives of all the deceased as contemplated under the Act. 6. It has been highlighted before the Court that the learned Tribunal has awarded the whole compensation to Smt. Bachuli Devi, in exclusion of her two sons, namely, Harish Singh and Suresh Singh. This is also not a big issue. But the issue starts from the point when Smt. Bachuli Devi in her affidavit (moved in the form of chief examination) has deposed that she was the first wife of Balwant Singh, while Smt. Tulsi Devi was the second wife. As per the Hindu Marriage Act, Smt. Tulsi Devi could never have become the second wife of Balwant Singh so long as Smt. Bachuli Devi was surviving and had not been divorced. Learned Tribunal has held Smt. Bachuli Devi entitled on the ground that she was the heir of Balwant Singh, the husband of Smt. Tulsi Devi and, at the same time, for the death of rest of the deceased, Smt. Bachuli Devi has been held entitled for the reason that she was the legal heir of the father of deceased Bhajan Singh. 7. I feel that since Smt. Tulsi Devi could never have been the second wife of Balwant Singh, therefore, Smt. Bachuli Devi could never have been the heir of Balwant Singh for the compensation awarded for the death of Smt. Tulsi Devi and her son Bhajan Singh and the grandchildren. On this premise, I allow all these appeals and set aside the impugned judgments and orders. 8. At the time of filing these appeals, this Court had permitted the claimant to withdraw fifty per cent of the decretal amount. Therefore, it is directed that if any amount has been withdrawn by the claimant, the same shall be recovered from her through court process with simple six per cent per annum interest thereon from the date of such withdrawal. Statutory amount in each of these appeals shall be returned to the insurance company with four per cent per annum compound interest. 9. Let the lower court records be sent back.