JUDGMENT : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Mr. A. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer of Mahindra Maxima Pick-Up bearing Registration No. AS-02E-6288. Also heard Mr. B.K. Purkayastha, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4/National Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer of Indica Car bearing registration No. AS-01U/7433. Mr. S. Rahman, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 1/claimant in all the three cases. Mr. A.I. Uddin, appears for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who are the owner and driver of the Mahindra Maxima Pick-Up respectively. 2. All the three appeals are being decided by this common judgment and order in view of the fact that the issue involved is the same and as it arises out of the same accident. 3. The facts in brief is that when three college going girls/claimants were walking along, by the side of the road, on 07.05.2013 at around 8:00 a.m., a Indica car hit a Mahindra Maxima Pick-Up from behind, due to which the Mahindra Maxima Pick-Up swerved to the left and hit them. As a result of the above, the three claimants sustained injuries. Thereafter, three claim petitions were filed in the MACT Hojai, which were registered as (1) MAC Case No. 543/2013 (which is related to MAC Appeal No. 635/2017), (2) MAC Case No. 544/2013 (which is related to MAC Appeal No. 636/2017) and (3) MAC Case No. 540/2013 (which is related to MAC Appeal No. 637/2017). 4. The learned Tribunal thereafter, disposed of all the above cases vide judgments dated 17.11.2015 by awarding different compensation amounts, based on the medical expenses incurred by the claimants, pain and suffering and non-pecuniary loss. Rs. 69,300/- was awarded in MAC Case No. 543/2013. Rs. 60,000/- was awarded in MAC Case No. 544/2013 and Rs. 3,21,000/- was awarded in MAC Case No. 540/2013. The amount awarded in MAC Case No. 540/2013 also included transportation cost and permanent disablement. All the awarded amounts carried interest of 6 % from the date of filing the claim petition. 5. The learned Tribunal fastened the liability for payment of all the compensation amounts solely on the appellant, who is the Insurer for the Mahindra Maxima Pick-UP. Thus, the appellant has filed the above three appeals against the judgments dated 17.11.2015 passed by the MACT, Hojai in MAC Case No. 543/2013,544/2013 and 540/2013. 6. 5. The learned Tribunal fastened the liability for payment of all the compensation amounts solely on the appellant, who is the Insurer for the Mahindra Maxima Pick-UP. Thus, the appellant has filed the above three appeals against the judgments dated 17.11.2015 passed by the MACT, Hojai in MAC Case No. 543/2013,544/2013 and 540/2013. 6. The counsel for the appellant submits that a perusal of the evidence adduced and the findings of the learned Tribunal would go to show, that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Indica Car and accordingly, the onus of paying all the compensation amounts should have been fastened upon the owner and driver of the Indica Car, thereby making the respondent No. 4 liable, as the respondent No. 4 was the insurer of the Indica car. 7. Mr. B.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, i.e., National Insurance Company Ltd. submits that the driver of the Mahindra Maxima Pick-Up was at fault, as the Mahindra Maxima Pick-Up had hit the girls while they were walking. He submits that even though the Indica Car had hit the Mahindra Maxima Pick-Up from behind, the driver of the Mahindra Maxima Pick-Up had a duty to control his vehicle, which he did not do. Instead of going straight, the Mahindra Maxima Pick-Up swerved to the left and hit the three girls, who were walking by the side of the road. He also submits that there is no infirmity with the judgment of the learned Tribunal and even if some liability is fixed upon the owner and driver of the Indica Car, the said liability should not go beyond 50 % of the compensation amounts awarded. 8. I have heard the counsels for the parties. The facts of the case in brief is that, while the three girls/claimants were walking along the side of the road, the Indica Car had hit the Mahindra Maxima Pick-Up from behind. The Mahindra Maxima Pick-Up thereafter hit the girls due to which they suffered injuries. 9. All the claimants have stated in their evidence that the injuries sustained by them occurred due to being hit by the Mahindra Maximo Pick-Up. However, the cause of the accident was due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Indica Car. 10. 9. All the claimants have stated in their evidence that the injuries sustained by them occurred due to being hit by the Mahindra Maximo Pick-Up. However, the cause of the accident was due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Indica Car. 10. The following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- (1) Whether on 7/5/13 at 8:00 a.m. the claimant sustained serious injuries when she was hit by rash and negligent driving of the vehicles bearing registration No. As 02 E 6288 and As 01 U 7433? (2) Whether the drivers of the offending vehicles were at fault? (3) Whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle and to what extent? 11. In respect of issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal has come to a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Indica Car. The discussion and finding by the learned Tribunal with regard to Issue No. 1, as reflected in the Judgment passed in MAC Case No. 543/2013 is reproduced below: "6. Regarding this issue the contention raised by the claimant is that at the time of occurrence she along with her friends were walking by the side of the road, then the offending Indica vehicle knocked the Mahindra Maxima and subsequently Mahindra Maxima fell down on her for which she sustained grievous injuries. The claimant has proved 33 kinds of exhibited documents. The claimant has also contended some fact in her evidence. The claimant's version is that the occurrence took place due to rash and negligent driving of Indica vehicle. 7. P.W.2, Sri Biren Bora has also supported the evidence of P.W.1 in regards to the occurrence that took place on 7/5/2013 at about 8 a.m. On the other hand the O.P No. 3 and 5 have only cross-examined the P.W.s on the point of income of the claimant and also on the point of the expenditures for medical treatment. The O.P.s have not raised any other point in the cross-examination of the P.W.s. So the evidence of P.W.s has remained unchanged. Hence the evidence of P.W.s are found believable due to absence of any major contradiction or infirmities. The O.P.s have not raised any other point in the cross-examination of the P.W.s. So the evidence of P.W.s has remained unchanged. Hence the evidence of P.W.s are found believable due to absence of any major contradiction or infirmities. I did not find justified ground to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.s. It is also found that the claimant sustained injuries as a result of accident and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Indica vehicle and for this reason stated above this issue is decided in affirmative." In respect of issue No. 2, though the learned Tribunal has held that the drivers were found at fault for driving in a rash and negligent manner, the learned Tribunal has come to the said finding, based on the discussion made in respect of Issue No. 1. As such, it is implied that the learned Tribunal has also held that the driver of the Indica Car was rash and negligent in respect of Issue No. 2 also. However, in respect of Issue No. 3, the learned Tribunal has come to a finding that both the drivers of the Indica Car and the Mahindra Maximo Pick-Up were rash and negligent, while driving their vehicles. The learned Tribunal has however failed to give any reasons or basis for coming to a finding that the driver of the Mahindra Maximo Pick-Up was also at fault. 12. The evidence adduced shows that the charge sheet filed by the police, which is exhibited as Exhibit - 4, with regard to the accident, states that the driver of the Indica Car has been charge sheeted for rash and negligent driving. The contents of the charge-sheet have not been put to challenge by the respondent No 4 in the cross-examination. The evidence adduced shows that the only challenge made by the respondent No. 4, to the claim of the claimants, is on the quantum of medical expenses incurred and on the income of the students. No challenge has been made to the charge-sheet. The claim petitions of the claimants also show that they have taken the stand that accident occurred due to the driver of the Indica Car being rash and negligent, while driving the vehicle. The above statement adduced by the claimants in evidence, have not been put to challenge by the respondent No. 4 during cross-examination. The claim petitions of the claimants also show that they have taken the stand that accident occurred due to the driver of the Indica Car being rash and negligent, while driving the vehicle. The above statement adduced by the claimants in evidence, have not been put to challenge by the respondent No. 4 during cross-examination. Thus, while there is evidence recorded showing that the accident was due to the fault of the Indica car, there is no evidence recorded, linking the driver of the Mahindra Maxima Pick-Up to any rash and negligent act, though it was the Mahindra that actually hit the girls. This Court thus finds that while the Mahindra Pick-Up had hit the girls, the cause for the said accident was due to the fault of the driver of the Indica Car. 13. The learned Tribunal, while holding that the insurance policy in respect of the Mahindra Maxima Pick-Up was valid, has not made any finding with respect to the insurance policy of the Indica Car, which was exhibited as Exibit-5. It appears to this court that despite the evidence recorded being to the effect that the rash and negligent act was on the part of driver of the Indica Car, the learned Tribunal has fastened the liability of paying the entire compensation amounts solely on the appellant, on the ground that the Mahindra Maxima Pick-Up had a valid insurance policy. The above being said, the facts as stated above, shows that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Indica car. As the owner of the Indica Car is vicariously liable for the rash and negligent act of his driver, the respondent No. 4, who is the insurer of the Indica Car, will have to indemnify the owner of the Indica Car as per Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. Accordingly, this Court holds that the respondent No. 4 will have to pay all the compensation amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal in all the three cases. This Court also holds that the learned Tribunal could not have come to a different finding in Issue No. 3, which is to the effect that the driver of the Mahindra Maxima Pick-Up was at fault, for driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, vis-a-vis Issue Nos. 1 & 2, without any evidence to support such a finding. This Court also holds that the learned Tribunal could not have come to a different finding in Issue No. 3, which is to the effect that the driver of the Mahindra Maxima Pick-Up was at fault, for driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, vis-a-vis Issue Nos. 1 & 2, without any evidence to support such a finding. In that view of the matter, the learned Tribunal erred in fastening the liability for paying all the compensation amounts on the appellant, as the same should have been paid by the respondent No. 4. 14. In view of the reasons stated above, the respondent No. 4 is directed to pay to the claimants the entire compensation amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal in all the 3 cases. Thus the respondent No. 4 shall pay the balance amount of all the compensation amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal, along with the interest mentioned therein, within a period of 1(one) month from today, by depositing the same in the Registry of this Court. The respondent No. 4 shall also pay to the appellant, the compensation amounts the appellant has already deposited in this Court and paid to the claimants. The money deposited by the respondent No. 4 shall be released to the claimants after proper identification. 15. Consequently, the impugned judgment's passed by the learned Tribunal in MAC Case No. 543/2013, MAC Case No. 544/2013 and MAC Case No. 540/2013 are modified to the extent indicated above. The appellant is allowed to take back the statutory deposits in all the above cases. 16. Send back the LCR.