JUDGMENT Amitav K. Gupta, J. – This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 07.01.2011 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Additional Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Bokaro, in T.M.V. Case No.87 of 2006, whereby the appellants-United India Insurance Company Limited has been directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 10,44,500/- with interest at the rate of 7% to the respondents/claimants from the date of filing of claim application, i.e., 2.11.2006. 2. Asha Devi, the claimant is the mother of deceased Pritesh Kumar Singh who died on account of motor accident involving Bolero vehicle no. MP-53D-0455 and Tata 407 Mini Truck bearing registration No. BR-40-7100. It is stated that the deceased Pritesh Kumar Singh was aged about 22 years and was a meritorious student pursuing B.Tech graduate in M.G.R. Educational Research Centre, Chennai. That he was likely to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month on his appointment as an engineer. The owner and driver of Tata 407, Mini Track filed their written statement denying the manner of the accident. It is stated that the Bolero turned turtle as the driver of Bolero vehicle and Tata Sumo were trying to overtake each other due to which the driver of the Bolero lost control and the Bolero skidded and fell off the road into a dry pond. The appellant/United India Insurance Company Ltd. filed the written statement denying its'' liability to pay the compensation. It is asserted that due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Bolero vehicle, the accident took place. 3. The owner of the Bolero vehicle filed his written statement stating that the deceased and others were travelling in the Bolero vehicle as members of the ''barat'' party and some members of the barat party were travelling in Tata Sumo vehicle. It is averred that Bolero had stopped on the left side of the road awaiting the arrival of Tata Sumo vehicle. That at that time Tata 407, Mini Truck, no. BR-40-7100 which was being driven rashly and negligently hit the Bolero vehicle due to which the Bolero fell in the dry pond. The deceased and two other occupants succumbed the injuries sustained due to the said accident. It is stated that the vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company, Limited, and the driver was holding a valid driving licence. 4. BR-40-7100 which was being driven rashly and negligently hit the Bolero vehicle due to which the Bolero fell in the dry pond. The deceased and two other occupants succumbed the injuries sustained due to the said accident. It is stated that the vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company, Limited, and the driver was holding a valid driving licence. 4. The respondent-National Insurance Company, Ltd., has also filed the written statements challenging the maintainability of the case submitting that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata 407 and Palajori P.S. Case No.42/2006 was registered on the information of Shankar Prasad Singh an occupant of Sumo vehicle. The police has submitted the charge sheet against the driver of the Tata 407 Mini Truck. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the court below framed seven issues. On the basis of the evidence on record it held that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the driver of Belero Vehicle rather the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of Tata 407, accordingly the liability to pay the compensation was fastened on the appellant/United India Insurance Company, Ltd. 6. Mr. D.C. Ghose, learned counsel for the United India Insurance Company Ltd. has argued that in the claim application, there is no averment regarding the negligence of the driver of the Mini Truck and the driver of Mini Truck has deposed that the accident did not take place on account of negligence of the driver of the said truck. That O.P. 1 and O.P.2 have stated that Bolero vehicle turned turtle as both Bolero and Tata Sumo while being driven at high speed were trying to overtake each other due to which the driver of Bolero Vehicle lost control and the Bolero fell in the dry pond. That O.P. no.3, the surveyor, appointed by the appellant-United Insurance Company, has deposed that the accident took place due to fault of the driver of Bolero Vehicle. Learned counsel has argued that in the absence of any evidence regarding the manner in which that accident took place the court below should have applied the principle of res-ipsa-lequitor and liability should have been jointly fixed upon the insurer of the Bolero Vehicle and appellant-Insurance Company, i.e. the insurer of Tata 407. 7. Learned counsel has argued that in the absence of any evidence regarding the manner in which that accident took place the court below should have applied the principle of res-ipsa-lequitor and liability should have been jointly fixed upon the insurer of the Bolero Vehicle and appellant-Insurance Company, i.e. the insurer of Tata 407. 7. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents/claimants and respondent-National Insurance Company have contended that this is not a case of contributory negligence. It is argued that three persons, who were travelling in the Bolero Vehicle, died on account of the accident and the legal heirs/dependents of the deceased filed separate claim cases. Admittedly the three claim cases were decided by the impugned judgment, and the liability to pay the compensation was fastened upon the appellants. It is submitted that the appellants did not challenge the judgment/award with respect to fastening the liability upon them to pay the compensation rather they have paid the compensation in the other two cases and the same evidence and facts are being challenged in the present case. It is argued that the appellant is estopped from raising such plea in the present appeal in view of the fact that the liability to pay compensation has been admitted in the other two cases. 8. Heard, At the threshold, it is not disputed that the appellant has not challenged the findings of the court below in the other two cases wherein the liability to pay the award has been fastened on the appellant. In fact, the appellant has satisfied the award in the other two cases decided by the common judgment. The O.P. Witness no.1 on behalf of the owner of Tata 407, has stated that accident took place due to negligence of both the vehicle. O.P. Witness no.3, the surveyor, appointed by the appellant has deposed that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the Bolero car and the Tata Mini Truck. The police has submitted the charge sheet against the driver of the Tata Mini Truck. Documentary and oral evidence have been considered and appreciated by the Tribunal and it has held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Mini Truck 407. It is not denied that the truck was validly insured with the appellant insurance company. 9. Documentary and oral evidence have been considered and appreciated by the Tribunal and it has held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Mini Truck 407. It is not denied that the truck was validly insured with the appellant insurance company. 9. It is clear that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Mini Truck, in which the charge-sheet was laid against the driver of the said vehicle. The appellant/United Insurance Company has not challenged the findings of the tribunal whereby the liability to pay the compensation has been fixed on the appellant/Insurer with respect to the other two deceased by the same judgment. There is no plausible explanation as to when the appellant/Insurer admitted to pay the compensation in the other two cases arising out of the same accident and common judgment then how can it avoid its liability to pay the compensation with respect to the deceased especially when the material evidence is same and the compensation was determined on consideration of the common evidence by a common judgment. The appellants are estopped from challenging the award as it is admitted that they have satisfied the award with respect to the other two deceased. 10. In view of the discussions made above, the appellant/Insurer shall pay the awarded compensation in terms of the order of the court below less the amount, if any, paid during the pendency of this appeal. 11. Registry is directed to refund the statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the appellant.